Men were surprised by the severity of symptoms they experienced after laparoscopic radical prostatectomyCommentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
J L Milne Dr J L Milne, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; jill.milne@calgaryhealthregion.ca What are the experiences of men after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP)? Qualitative descriptive study. Alberta, Canada. 19 men (age 46–76 y), who had LRP in the past 3 years, a variety of postoperative experiences, and were able to articulate these experiences, were recruited from a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and letters sent from surgeons’ offices. 5 individual and 3 focus group interviews (3, 5, and 6 members) were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data from interviews and accompanying field notes were analysed inductively. (1) Men spoke of the importance of backgrounding oneself, or being informed about their condition and treatment before meeting with the urologist. This preparation allowed them to understand what the urologist was saying and thus, feel more in control. Information was obtained from videos, textbooks, and the internet. They asked the urologist to explain treatment options, including how the tumour would be removed and then sought first-hand personal knowledge …
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".