The Canadian Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Audit Study (CanBas)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence, diagnostic patterns and management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in Canadian urology outpatient practice. METHODS: Representative urologists were randomly selected from lists provided by the Canadian and Quebec Urological Associations. Each patient identified with a BPH diagnosis during a typical 2-consecutive-week period during April, May or June 2007 was asked to complete a corresponding International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) questionnaire. Each day, the participant urologist completed an outpatient log and a detailed programmed chart review to transcribe demographics, investigations and treatments associated with each BPH patient. RESULTS: Eighty-six urologists were invited to participate. Thirty-eight (44.2%) agreed, and 27 of those (71.1%) submitted evaluable data for the audit. Of the 5616 patients seen in outpatient practice (average 208 per urologist), 4324 (77%) were male. A BPH diagnosis was identified in 19.6% of the men (n = 849; mean age 69.5, standard deviation [SD] 10, yr; age range 40-100 yr; mean duration of symptoms 4.8, SD 4.2, yr; mean IPSS score 12.3, SD 7.4; mean prostate specific antigen [PSA] 3.9, SD 3.9, ng/mL). Twenty-four percent of patients had prostates that were rated as large, 50% as medium and 26% as small. PSA level correlated positively with prostate volume. Twenty-two percent were initial consultations for LUTS and 78% were repeat visits. Diagnostic evaluation tended to follow those examinations and tests recommended by the Canadian BPH guidelines. Treatment choices tended to follow an evidence-based algorithm with respect to treatment choices for men in the various prostate-volume and PSA groups. CONCLUSION: This prospective audit indicates that BPH remains a common condition managed by urologists in outpatient practice. Investigations and treatments confirm that Canadian urologists appear to be following Canadian BPH guidelines as well as the most recent evidence from the literature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".