MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996824833 · doi:10.1188/08.cjon.647-654

Understanding Urinary Incontinence After Radical Prostatectomy: A Nursing Framework

2008· review· en· W1996824833 on OpenAlexaff
Wellam F. Yu Ko, Jo‐Ann V. Sawatzky

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical journal of oncology nursing · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmbarrassmentProstatectomyProstate cancerUrinary incontinenceErectile dysfunctionAnxietyDepression (economics)UrologyCancerInternal medicinePsychotherapistPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prostate cancer is one of the most prevalent malignancies diagnosed in North American men. Typically, men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer have two options for curative treatment: radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy (RP). Many men choose RP to remove the cancer; however, the intervention has two possible side effects that patients dread: erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence (UI). At least 50% of men who undergo RP suffer from UI, which can lead to embarrassment, loss of a sense of control, depression, and decreased social interactions. The Human Response to Illness Model provides a framework to gain a comprehensive understanding of the physiologic, pathophysiologic, behavioral, and experiential perspectives as well as personal and environmental factors related to UI following RP. Knowledge gained from these perspectives will help nurses design strategies that facilitate coping and improve outcomes in men with UI following RP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.277
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical journal of oncology nursingSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207