PRACTICE PATTERNS OF CANADIAN UROLOGISTS IN BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA AND PROSTATE CANCER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We reviewed the practice patterns of Canadian urologists in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostate cancer, and assessed the changes that occurred between 1995 and 1998. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 1995 and 1998 questionnaires were mailed to all active members of the Canadian Urological Association who practiced adult urology in Canada. Many questions were similar, allowing for the assessment of changes in practice patterns. RESULTS: A number of changes were observed between 1995 and 1998. Cystoscopy and imaging of the upper urinary tract were used less often to evaluate uncomplicated cases of BPH. However, 39% of respondents continued to perform cystoscopy routinely. Finasteride was no longer administered in men with a smaller prostate. In 1998 before radical prostatectomy 28% of respondents routinely performed a bone scan, 29% cystoscopy and 57% chest x-ray. The number believing that maximal androgen blockade is the most effective hormonal therapy decreased from 90% to 62%, while 24% reported in the 1998 survey that they frequently administered intermittent hormonal therapy. Comparison with an American study from 1995 indicated that American urologists used the American Urological Association symptom score and performed a prostate specific antigen test more frequently than Canadian urologists. However, Canadian urologists performed cystoscopy more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: These surveys provide a useful insight into the variations in clinical practice of Canadian urologists and help to determine whether changes are occurring in regard to the development of practice guidelines. They also indicate the need to develop further guidelines, and ensure that these guidelines are widely promoted and accepted by the urological community.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".