Circulating free insulin-like growth factor-I and prostate cancer: a case-control study nested in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Circulating total insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) is an established risk factor for prostate cancer. However, only a small proportion of circulating IGF-I is free or readily dissociable from IGF-binding proteins (its bioavailable form), and few studies have investigated the association of circulating free IGF-I with prostate cancer risk. METHODS: We analyzed data from 767 prostate cancer cases and 767 matched controls nested within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort, with an average of 14-years (interquartile range = 2.9) follow-up. Matching variables were study center, length of follow-up, age, and time of day and fasting duration at blood collection. Circulating free IGF-I concentration was measured in serum samples collected at recruitment visit (mean age 55 years old; standard deviation = 7.1) using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Conditional logistic regressions were performed to examine the associations of free IGF-I with risk of prostate cancer overall and subdivided by time to diagnosis (≤ 14 and > 14 years), and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: Circulating free IGF-I concentrations (in fourths and as a continuous variable) were not associated with prostate cancer risk overall (odds ratio [OR] = 1.00 per 0.1 nmol/L increment, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.02) or by time to diagnosis, or with prostate cancer subtypes, including tumor stage and histological grade. CONCLUSIONS: Estimated circulating free IGF-I was not associated with prostate cancer risk. Further research may consider other assay methods that estimate bioavailable IGF-I to provide more insight into the well-substantiated association between circulating total IGF-I and subsequent prostate cancer risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".