Remembered International Index of Erectile Function Domain Scores Are Not Accurate in Assessing Preoperative Potency in Candidates for Bilateral Nerve-Sparing Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The reliability of reported postoperative data in patients undergoing nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy is often limited because the degree of sexual function (SF) has not been assessed objectively both before and after treatment. Most reports include only a retrospective chart review, and there is a question of whether such data are accurate. AIM: To test the agreement between a remembered International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) score, which targeted SF regarding a period preceding the surgery by 6 months and a real-time IIEF, 4 weeks prior to surgery, in candidates for bilateral nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy (BNSRRP). METHODS: From May 2005 to May 2006, 333 consecutive patients were candidates for BNSRRP at our institution. Upon admission on the day prior to surgery, each patient was asked to complete a set of validated questionnaires including both a remembered and a real-time IIEF. Two-tailed Student's t-test, chi2 test, Pearson correlation coefficient, multivariate regression analyses, and interrater agreement (kappa) were used to test the agreement between the two assessments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Assessing the preoperative SF characteristics of candidates for a BNSRRP, and testing the reliability of a remembered IIEF with the interrater agreement (kappa) test. RESULTS: Mean scores for the remembered IIEF were overall better than the real-time IIEF scores, as supported by direct comparison of the mean IIEF domain scores. Univariate correlation analysis and multivariate regression analysis indicated a significant correlation in the quality of the SF during the two periods. However, the remembered IIEF scores did not show a good statistical agreement with those of the real-time assessment, as demonstrated by the interrater agreement analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the lack of significant agreement between remembered and real-time IIEF scores, the present findings indicate that remembered IIEF should not be used to assess SF in a real-life clinical setting in candidates for BNSRRP.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".