MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostatitis: prevalence of painful ejaculation in men with clinical BPH

2005· article· en· W1968878046 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityQueen's University
FundersSanofi
KeywordsMedicineLower urinary tract symptomsProstatitisEjaculationInternational Prostate Symptom ScoreUrologySexual dysfunctionErectile dysfunctionRetrograde ejaculationProstateSexual functionGynecologyAlfuzosinInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence and importance of pain/discomfort on ejaculation (prostatitis-like symptom) in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) diagnosed with clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Baseline data from 5096 men reporting LUTS suggestive of BPH, and enrolled in the ALF-ONE study by general practitioners and urologists in Europe, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Canada, were analysed to determine the prevalence and significance of pain/discomfort on ejaculation. All the men were asked to complete the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) questionnaire, the bother score (IPSS question 8), and the Danish Prostate Symptom Score sexual-function questionnaire (DAN-PSSsex) which assesses three symptoms (rigidity of erection, amount of ejaculate and pain/discomfort on ejaculation) and their bothersomeness. RESULTS: There were 3700 sexually active men who had an evaluable answer to the DAN-PSSsex question related to pain/discomfort on ejaculation. Of these, 688 (18.6%) reported pain/discomfort on ejaculation and 609 (88%) considered it was a problem. Patients with painful ejaculation had more severe LUTS and reported greater bother (P < 0.001). Of men with painful ejaculation, 72% reported erectile dysfunction, of whom 91% considered it a problem, and 75% reported reduced ejaculation, of whom 81% considered it a problem. By contrast, of men with no ejaculatory discomfort, 57% reported erectile dysfunction, of whom 79% considered it a problem, and 56% reported reduced ejaculation, of whom 57% considered it a problem. A history of urinary tract infection was reported by 12% of men in the ejaculatory pain group, compared with 7% in the LUTS-only group, while 5% of men in the ejaculatory pain group reported macroscopic haematuria, compared to 3% in the LUTS-only group. Men with ejaculatory pain were slightly younger, but there were no significant differences in duration of LUTS, history of acute urinary retention, prostate-specific antigen concentrations or maximum urinary flow rate compared to the LUTS-only group. CONCLUSIONS: Of sexually active men with LUTS suggestive of BPH, approximately 20% complain of specific prostatitis-like symptoms of pain/discomfort on ejaculation, and these men clearly differ from those who present with LUTS only. For most the symptom is a significant bother. Men with BPH and painful ejaculation have more severe LUTS and reported greater bother, and had a higher prevalence of erectile dysfunction and reduced ejaculation, than men with LUTS only. Evaluation and treatment strategies should address this population of men with symptoms suggestive of both prostatitis and BPH.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.303 · 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