A randomized placebo‐controlled multicentre study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of finasteride for male chronic pelvic pain syndrome (category IIIA chronic nonbacterial prostatitis)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if finasteride can reduce symptoms in men with a clinical diagnosis of chronic nonbacterial prostatitis (National Institutes of Health, NIH, category IIIA chronic pelvic pain syndrome, CPPS) compared with placebo. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men (76) with category IIIA CPPS enrolled in four North American prostatitis research centres were randomized after a 2-week placebo run-in to finasteride or placebo for 6 months. The primary efficacy variable was a subjective overall assessment (SOA); the secondary efficacy variables included the NIH chronic prostatitis symptom index (NIH-CPSI) and safety data. Patients were assessed at screening, baseline (after the 2-week placebo run-in), 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients had at least one assessment on medication (31 placebo, 33 finasteride); 75% of the finasteride and 54% of the placebo group had at least a mild improvement (defined as > 25% improvement in SOA), and 44% and 27%, respectively, a moderate or marked improvement (>50% improvement in SOA). The trend was similar in the NIH-CPSI scores. Five patients in the finasteride and seven in the placebo group reported medication-related adverse events. CONCLUSION: This randomized placebo-controlled pilot study suggests that finasteride was of benefit for some men with category IIIA CPPS, but the results do not justify recommending finasteride as monotherapy, except for men who also have benign prostatic hyperplasia. A larger, properly powered study, possibly evaluating combination with other therapies or specifically in men with prostatitis and benign prostatic hyperplasia, is required to confirm any clinical benefit.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".