MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036364674 · doi:10.1089/end.2000.14.671

Durability of Results Obtained with Transurethral Microwave Thermotherapy in the Treatment of Men with Symptomatic Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

2000· review· en· W2036364674 on OpenAlexaff
Ernest W. Ramsey, Christer Dahlstrand

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endourology · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHyperplasiaUrologyProstatectomyProstateSurgeryTransurethral resection of the prostateInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To assess the durability of the results of transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), we have reviewed publications describing trials with at least 3 years of follow-up. For men treated only by TUMT, improvement in symptoms and quality of life appears to be maintained for at least 4 to 5 years. Improvement in peak flow rates is modest but is generally maintained, particularly after higher-energy therapies. These results represent responders, and a crucial question is the need for additional treatments. With lower-energy treatment, this is common: between 50% and 60% within 3 to 5 years. With higher-energy TUMT, the retreatment rate appears to be less, approximating 20% within 3 to 4 years. When comparing these results with those of transurethral resection, it should be noted that there is a significant failure rate with surgery, and even if failure is more common with TUMT, men may be prepared to accept this risk rather than the greater morbidity of prostatectomy.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations25
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EndourologySame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207