Importance of Baseline Potency Rate Assessment of Men Diagnosed with Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Prior to Radical Prostatectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common, and multifactorial medical problem with significant impact on quality of life. Knowledge about baseline potency is highly important in men undergoing treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) as it might influence judgments about impact of treatment and thereby treatment decisions. AIMS: To analyze the baseline potency rate of men with clinically localized PCa prior to radical prostatectomy (RP). Furthermore, it was of interest to identify comorbid factors of preoperative ED. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Prevalence of preoperative ED and association between comorbidities and ED in men prior to RP in bi- and multivariable logistic regression analyses. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a large single center cohort of 1,330 evaluable PCa patients who were preoperatively assessed with the abridged 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) also described as Sexual Health Inventory for Men. Baseline potency and comorbidity rates, and their distribution were described. The risk of baseline ED associated with age, body mass index (BMI), the presence of hyperlipoproteinemia (HLP), non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM), hypertension, and depression were analyzed in bi- and multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Using the IIEF-5 cutoff value of 21, 48% demonstrated some degree of ED. Severe, moderate, mild to moderate, mild, and no ED was observed in 9.2, 4.0, 10.2, 24.7, and 52% respectively. In univariable analyses, ED significantly increased according to increasing age, BMI, presence of HLP, hypertension, NIDDM, and depression (P <or= 0.045). In multivariable analysis, age, BMI, NIDDM, and depression represented independent risk factors of baseline ED (all P
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".