Correlation of Degree of Penile Curvature between Patient Estimates and Objective Measures among Men with Peyronie’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: : Among men with Peyronie's disease (PD), the degree of penile curvature has significant implications on psychological well-being, sexual function, treatment planning, and posttherapy evaluations. AIM: The primary objective of the current study was to correlate patients' estimates of penile angulation with objective measures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (i) Proportion of patients over- or underestimating their actual degree of curvature; and (ii) degree differences between patient estimates and objective measures of penile curvature. Methods. At baseline, patients with established PD were asked to provide a "best estimate" of their degree of penile curvature. Objective measures of penile angulation were then performed using standardized photographs and protractor-based measurement of penile curvature during full erection. Correlations were performed between patient estimates of penile curvature and objective measures of penile angulation. RESULTS: Eighty-one men with established PD and a mean age of 52 years (range: 20-72 years) were prospectively evaluated. Mean duration of disease was 33 months (range: 6-276 months), and mean plaque size was 1.4 cm +/- 0.1 standardized error (SE). The proportion of patients with dorsal, lateral, and ventral curvatures was 39%, 57%, and 4%, respectively. Patient estimates of baseline penile curvature (mean 51 degrees +/- 3.1 SE) differed significantly from objective measurements (mean 40 degrees +/- 2.4, P = 0.001). A significantly higher proportion of patients overestimate their actual degree of penile curvature (54% overestimate, 26% underestimate, and 20% are accurate within 5 degrees, P = 0.002). Compared with objective measures, patients' estimates of degree of penile curvature differed by an average of 20 degrees +/- 2.2 SE. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PD tend to overestimate their degree of penile curvature. Objective measurement of penile angulation is necessary to accurately counsel patients regarding disease severity, recommend appropriate treatment strategies, and objectively evaluate outcomes following therapy.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".