Erectile Function Rehabilitation in the Radical Prostatectomy Patient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer is common and is being diagnosed in younger men now compared with two decades ago. Long-term functional outcomes are of significant importance to patient and impact upon the patient decision-making process regarding choice of therapy. Erectile function preservation (rehabilitation) has gained significant traction worldwide despite the absence of definitive evidence in its favor. AIM: To define the role of rehabilitation in the prostate cancer patient who has undergone radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: A committee of five experts in the field from three countries was convened, and using a thorough analysis of the literature and the Delphi approach to expert opinion, recommendations were arrived at for clinicians treating men with prostate cancer before and after definitive surgical management. RESULTS: Recommendations arrived at included: that clinicians should discuss prevalence rates, the pathophysiology of erectile dysfunction after RP and the predictors of erectile function recovery, that validated instruments should be used using the published cut-offs for normalcy, that rehabilitation be discussed with patients, and that they be informed that significant potential benefits may be associated with rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: The International Consensus of Sexual Medicine (ICSM) 2001 committee on rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy recommended that a discussion occur regarding rehabilitation in all patients undergoing or who have undergone RP. However, the committee recognized the absence of definitive data to date and could not comment on the optimal approach to rehabilitation at this time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".