Diagnosis and management of benign prostatic hyperplasia in primary care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), and its clinical manifestation as lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), is a major health concern for aging men. There have been significant advances in the diagnosis and treatment of BPH in recent years. There has been a renewed interest in medical therapies and less invasive surgical techniques. As a consequence, the treatment needs of men with mild to moderate LUTS without evidence of prostate cancer can now be accomplished in a primary care setting. There are differences in the way urologists and primary care physicians approach the evaluation and management of LUTS due to BPH, which is not reflected in Canadian Urological Association (CUA) and American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines. A "shared care" approach involving urologists and primary care physicians represents a reasonable and viable model for the care of men suffering from LUTS. The essence of the model centres around educating and communicating effectively with the patient on BPH. This article provides primary care physicians with an overview of the diagnostic and management strategies outlined in recent CUA and AUA guidelines so that they may be better positioned to effectively deal with this patient population. It is now apparent that we must move away from the urologist as the first-line physician, and allow primary care physicians to accept a new role in the diagnosis and management of BPH.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".