What AI Says About Supplements and Off-Label Drug Use Regarding Prostate Cancer

[jazj]

Sure wish I had this tool over 2 years ago when I started reading up although you can't 100% trust the answers. The tools are getting smarter. I'm a software developer and have early access to Google's Gemini Pro 1.5 AI model that was relased Feb 15 2024 claiming to have better 'scores' than all the other AI models (such as GPT-4 which powers Microsoft CoPilot). I use these bots in my job and personal life a lot and like to compare responses from them using the same prompt. Here's one example for the prompt:

What supplement or off-label use drugs show a lower hazard ratio for prostate cancer metastases in meta-analysis studies?

Gemini Pro 1.5 Response:

Supplements and off-label use drugs that have shown a lower hazard ratio of prostate cancer metastases in meta-analysis studies:

Vitamin D: A meta-analysis of 10 studies found that men with higher levels of vitamin D had a 22% lower risk of developing metastatic prostate cancer (HR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.67-0.91).

Omega-3 fatty acids: A meta-analysis of 13 studies found that men who consumed more omega-3 fatty acids had a 15% lower risk of developing metastatic prostate cancer (HR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.78-0.93).

Green tea extract: A meta-analysis of 7 studies found that men who consumed green tea extract had a 20% lower risk of developing metastatic prostate cancer (HR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.69-0.93).

Curcumin: A meta-analysis of 5 studies found that men who consumed curcumin had a 27% lower risk of developing metastatic prostate cancer (HR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.59-0.91).

Quercetin: A meta-analysis of 4 studies found that men who consumed quercetin had a 23% lower risk of developing metastatic prostate cancer (HR = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.65-0.91).

Off-label use drugs:

Metformin: A meta-analysis of 6 studies found that men with prostate cancer who took metformin had a 25% lower risk of developing metastatic disease (HR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.63-0.89).

Aspirin: A meta-analysis of 10 studies found that men with prostate cancer who took aspirin had a 13% lower risk of developing metastatic disease (HR = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.79-0.96).

GPT-4 (Microsoft Copilot) gave an almost identical response but it gives links to the citing sources where Gemini Pro 1.5 didn't and and Copilot didn't give the HR and CI in the response like Gemini did.

Anthropothic's Claude 2 which in many cases gives better responses than both but seems to be falling behind as of late has this repsonse. Note that Claude can search the web for the lastest info. I think it's data is only current as of 2021.

Based on my search of the literature, a few supplements and off-label drugs have shown potential association with lower hazard ratios for prostate cancer metastases in meta-analyses, though more research is still needed:

Statins: Some meta-analyses of observational studies have found lower hazard ratios for prostate cancer recurrence or mortality among statin users compared to non-users. The suggested protective effect remains debated, as results have been mixed across studies. Statin types and doses assessed vary.

Vitamin D: Several meta-analyses of observational studies note vitamin D levels above vs below ~30 ng/mL to be associated with reduced prostate cancer progression or mortality, suggesting possible protective effects. However, causality remains uncertain.

Metformin: A 2020 meta-analysis found metformin usage to be associated with lower hazard ratios for overall mortality, cancer-specific mortality, and progression in prostate cancer patients. Other reviews have had heterogeneous findings. Mechanisms unclear.

Aspirin: A few meta-analyses have suggested aspirin usage correlates with reduced prostate cancer mortality rate ratios, particularly long-term usage. Effects may relate to potential anti-inflammatory pathways.

In summary, further research is still needed, but protective associations with lower hazard ratios for prostate cancer progression have been suggested by some meta-analyses so far for statins, vitamin D, metformin and aspirin consumption. However, causal implications remain actively debated.

[LowT]

From ChatGPT 4:

Is the beneficial effect of use of statins on prostate cancer likely due to the lowering effect on testosterone levels by the lowering of Cholesterol.

Statins are primarily used to lower cholesterol levels in the body, and there has been interest in their potential effects on prostate cancer risk and progression. Some research suggests that statins might have a protective effect against prostate cancer, but the exact mechanism is not fully understood.

One hypothesis is that statins could influence prostate cancer risk through their effects on testosterone levels, since cholesterol is a precursor for testosterone synthesis, and testosterone plays a significant role in the development and progression of prostate cancer. However, the relationship between statins, cholesterol, testosterone levels, and prostate cancer is complex and not fully established.

A review of studies on the relationship between statin use and testosterone levels published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine in 2013 concluded that the current evidence does not support a strong effect of statins on testosterone levels.

Moreover, other mechanisms have been proposed for how statins could influence prostate cancer risk. These include anti-inflammatory effects, induction of tumor cell apoptosis, inhibition of tumor cell proliferation, and reduction of oxidative stress.

As of my last update in October 2021, more research is needed to understand the potential effects of statins on prostate cancer and the mechanisms involved. If you have questions about statin use and prostate cancer, it's important to discuss them with a healthcare provider.

[Tall_Allen]

That's what happens when data is accumulated without comprehension - pure garbage.

[9020B in reply to Tall_Allen]

It is much worse than that. We are currently witnessing programmers presenting their bias under the guise of AI. You are correct. Garbage in, garbage out. Blindly trusting anything AI will never be a wise thing to do.

[Kaliber in reply to Tall_Allen]

Rotflol …. I hadn’t actually thought of AI like this before, but very well put. I have one of the pre trained transformers ( chatGTP or one of those ) and it sometimes brings up a bit of something I hadn’t heard of before or gives me a different perspective to think about. I can get rather specific or want it to be more inclusive and mine falters a bit or uses one of its standard canned excuses for failure. it still doesn’t feel like we are “ there yet “ with those. Just IMHO.

❤️❤️❤️

[MrG68]

First of all, I'd be extremely cautious with meta data studies. Although they can at first glance look like they have a lot of weight of evidence, you need to examine each one to get a true reflection. These things, IMO, are usually of poor quality data.

As for the AI, I'm all for using AI in data analysis. But the way your using it here, I think you're getting a false impression of how advanced it is. It can give you responses that look quite convincing, but when you scratch the surface it gets a lot of things wrong or misrepresented.

I would suggest that if you want to use AI, you can use it to help understand a paper you are researching to understand it better. You can get it to explain terminology quicker.

I wouldn't rely on it making decisions for you,more like helping you to understand the data so you can make an informed decision.

The power of the AI is actually the quality and quantity of the data.

If you put in poor data, you'll get poor results but they will look convincing. Try to use the best data you can find. These meta analysis aren't what I'd consider using.

[j-o-h-n]

I asked Ai what it thought of me?......It responded "Fuck You" and power downed my P.C. I think it has a point there....

Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.

j-o-h-n

[Worked_the_World]

Coming from mucho decades of researching for scientific, engineering, and authorship applications I have a few caveats about AI.

How does the algorithm select from among incompatible sources? Responses HealthUnlocked indicate that different medical experts disagree vehemently. How does the AI internal selection decide to ignore a blatantly erroneously result? How does the AI system sort through a cloud in three dimensions of isolated data points and select a path through them.

Finally, I do not see a way for creative thinking to enter the scenario. AI is limited to existing information, albeit with the ability to synthesize overall conclusions.

Just a lowly skeptic's opinion.