Practice patterns of post-radical prostatectomy incontinence surgery in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We assess the practice patterns of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and urethral sling insertion after radical prostatectomy (RP) from a large population-based cohort. METHODS: We examined 25 346 men in Ontario, Canada who underwent RP between 1993 and 2006. Using hospital and cancer registry data, we identified patients who subsequently underwent an incontinence procedure. We characterized the practice patterns of post-prostatectomy incontinence procedures across Ontario during the study interval. RESULTS: A total of 703 (2.8%) men underwent subsequent insertion of an AUS and 282 (1.1%) underwent a urethral sling procedure (985 total incontinence procedures, 3.9%) over the study period. During the study period, 121 hospitals performed RP. Among them, 32 (26%) hospitals performed both RP and AUS/sling procedures, and 89 (74%) performed RP only. Four hospitals performed AUS/sling procedures but not RP. Of the 36 institutions that performed AUS/sling procedures, the median annual case volume was 0.29 (interquartile range: 0.083-0.75). Of all incontinence procedures, 56% were performed at 3 academic institutions. When examining observed rates of AUS/sling procedures compared with expected rates from the overall cohort, 15 of 32 hospitals (47%) performed significantly fewer incontinence procedures than expected given their RP case volume (p range: <0.0001-0.0390) and 5 (16%) performed significantly more (p range: <0.0001-0.038). CONCLUSIONS: A small number of academic institutions provide most of the surgical care for men with incontinence following RP in Ontario. Many centres that perform RP refer out to other centres to surgically manage their patients' incontinence.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".