MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1837183135 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.2557

Artificial urinary sphincter erosion after radical prostatectomy in patients treated with and without radiation

2015· article· en· W1837183135 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Amanda Hird, Sidney B. Radomski

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstatectomyArtificial urinary sphincterRadiation therapyUrinary incontinenceSurgeryIncidence (geometry)Confidence intervalAdjuvant radiotherapyRelative riskUrologyProstate cancerCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: There has been increasing evidence supporting the use of adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer. Significant stress incontinence after RP is not uncommon and the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard of treatment. Our objective was to assess if increased use of radiotherapy after RP has changed the rate of erosion and infection in the face of improvement in radiation technique and equipment in men who had an AUS implanted in the last 10 years. METHODS: We retrospectively examined 118 patients from December 2001 to January 2012 who underwent a RP with or without postoperative radiotherapy and subsequently had an AUS implanted. We divided the patients into two cohorts (Group 1: December 2001-December 2006 and Group 2: January 2007-January 2012). We reviewed all patient records for age, cuff size implanted, history of postoperative radiotherapy, previous incontinence surgery, revisions, and complications (erosion/infection). RESULTS: There were 36 and 82 patients in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. The mean age was similar between groups, 67 years both groups (p = 0.980). The number of patients treated with postoperative radiotherapy was similar between groups (36% vs. 32%, p = 0.640, respectively). There was no difference in the incidence of erosion or infection between Group 1 and 2 (p = 0.848 and p = 0.178, respectively). The overall relative risk (RR) of erosion was significantly higher in those who had radiotherapy compared to those who did not (RR 4.05, 95% confidence interval 1.1-15.3). CONCLUSIONS: Over the last 10 years, there has not been an increase in the number of patients receiving an AUS after RP and radiotherapy at our centre. During this time, the incidence of erosion and infection has not increased. However, our study reaffirms that the relative risk of erosion remains higher in patients who have had radiotherapy despite improvement in radiation treatment techniques and equipment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207