The good, the bad, and the unknown of late onset hypogonadism: the urological perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evaluation and treatment of late-onset hypogonadism (LOH) is one of the manifold tasks of the urologist in daily practice. Diagnosis of LOH is based on an adequate history and physical examination as well as biochemical assessment of androgen deficiency. Treatment of hypogonadism with androgen therapy has been shown to be highly effective in re-establishing normal testosterone levels and maintaining libido, sexual function and improving muscle mass and bone mineral density. Recent pharmacological research has developed short-acting testosterone gel preparations and a 3-month depot injection. The possible development or unmasking of prostate cancer has long been a major concern in treating LOH. Consequently underlying prostate disease should be excluded by diagnostic measures before androgen therapy is initiated. Evidence suggests that provided hypogonadal men are carefully counselled and closely monitored during treatment testosterone therapy can be initiated after radical prostatectomy for non-metastatic prostate cancer with undetectable prostate specific antigen of long duration.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".