Normal variation and influence of stress, caffeine intake, and sexual activity on uroflowmetry parameters of a middle‐aged asymptomatic cohort of volunteer male urologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To assess normal variations of uroflowmetry in middle-aged asymptomatic male urologists and to analyse the influence of stress, caffeine intake, and sexual activity. METHODS: Thirty-one male urologists from Quebec and Ontario were recruited for this study. All were healthy, not taking any current medications known to interfere with lower urinary tract function, and symptom-free (International Prostate Symptom Score less than 5). Each received two identical flowmeters to keep over a period of 2 weeks, one at home and one in his busiest office. Ten uroflow tracings, with a volume greater than 150 mL, were requested from each of them; five at home and five in the office. A total of 310 flows were analysed. The subjective level of stress, coffee intake, and sexual activity, in the hour before each uroflowmetrogram, was recorded, through a short self-administered questionnaire and stress visual scale. RESULTS: are presented as an average per individual. The voided volume was 331.9 mL, with an SD of 94.8 mL. The voiding time was 32.7 seconds (SD=15.5). The peak flow rate was 20.5 mL/sec (SD=3.9), the mean flow rate was 14.3 mL/sec (SD=3.0), and the time to maximum flow was 7.2 sec (SD=4.0). Subjective levels of stress did not significantly change these parameters. Uroflows were obtained with and without coffee drinking. The voided volume was 337.4 mL (SD=109.2) vs. 290.8 mL (SD=77.3) (P=0.03), and peak flow rate 19.4 mL/sec (SD=4.1) vs. 18.9 mL/sec (SD=3.1) (P=0.49), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Uroflowmetry parameters and voided volume are highly variable in a normal asymptomatic population. Subjective stress level does not seem to have an influence on these parameters. Coffee intake significantly increases the voided volume but does not change the peak flow rate. These conclusions should be considered when using uroflowmetry parameters as an outcome measure.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".