Current state of penile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Erectile dysfunction is a major source of morbidity for many men who undergo radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer annually. Few areas of urology remain as controversial as penile rehabilitation postprostatectomy, an ill defined treatment strategy designed to minimize the incidence and severity of erectile dysfunction. RECENT FINDINGS: Contemporary approaches to penile rehabilitation include oral phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors, vacuum constriction devices, intracavernous vasoactive injections and attempts at frequent sexual encounters. The intent of penile rehabilitation strategies is to facilitate the recovery of erectile function through preservation of cavernous smooth muscle, though none has definitive evidence of benefit. SUMMARY: This review will evaluate the current theories of the cause of postprostatectomy erectile dysfunction, alterations in surgical technique to minimize it, and the application of erectogenic pharmaceuticals to improve recovery of erectile function, or maximize its preservation. A discussion of basic science evidence and clinical trials will be reviewed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it