ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Abnormal Flagging of Prostate Specific Antigen Screening Tests: A Regression Discontinuity Design.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is no explicitly normal or abnormal level of prostate specific antigen (PSA) in the blood, yet the lab reported "upper limit of normal" (ULN) represents the most accessible guidance available to physicians interpreting these tests and is agnostic to risk factors and life expectancy. We hypothesize that "abnormal flagging" on "elevated" results is a potent driver of downstream care irrespective of a patient's underlying prostate cancer risk.
methodsRegression discontinuity design was applied to a cohort of patients undergoing PSA screening at a single center to isolate and estimate the impact of "abnormal flagging" of results above the PSA ULN on subsequent early repeat ("confirmatory") PSA testing, urology referral, and prostate MRI or biopsy (or both).
resultsAmongst 38,042 screening PSA tests, 1041 (2.7%) were flagged as abnormal. Adjusting for patient age and PSA gap, "abnormal" flagging of PSA (versus "normal") was associated with an increased odds of repeat PSA testing (OR: 14.17; 95% CI 11.53-17.43; p < 0.001), referral (odds ratio (OR): 10.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.53-13.47; p < 0.001), and either prostate MRI or biopsy (or both; OR 13.61; 95% CI 8.81-21.64; p < 0.001).
conclusionsWhile the use of PSA ULN has recognized shortcomings, abnormal flagging of results above this threshold strongly influences additional testing, referral, and biopsy, potentially leading to risk-discordant over- and under-evaluation. An improved reporting standard may include risk estimates of meaningful endpoints such as the risk of prostate cancer metastasis or death.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.