Pad tests and self‐reports of continence in men awaiting radical prostatectomy: Establishing baseline norms for males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: In this study, we report normal pad weight gain in a group self-reported continent men and compare the self-report data with the 24-hr pad test and the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects awaiting radical prostatectomy were consecutively recruited. Exclusion criteria were a previous history of urologic surgery, reported urinary incontinence, or a medical problem which could affect bladder function. RESULTS: Two hundred forty five men were enrolled. All were Caucasian, mean age 62.7 years, mean Gleason score 6.5, and mean PSA 8.3. At initial interview, all described themselves as continent of urine and 26 declined the 24-hr pad test because they were emphatic that they were continent. Of the 220 remaining, mean pad weight gain was 4.0 g on 24-hr pad test (SD 3.8; range 0-35.0 g), mean IPSS score was 7.23; 95 subjects scored > or = 8 (moderate), 13 scored > or = 20 (severe). The IPSS single Quality of Life (QOL) question and the 24 hr pad weight were not correlated; the summary IPSS score and pad weight had a correlation of 0.16 (P = 0.02) and the QOL question and the summary IPSS score had a correlation of 0.63 (P < 0.001). IPSS QOL scores were worse for those recording > or = 8 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The range of weight gain between 0 and 35 g suggests that self-report alone of urinary continence is an inaccurate measure of continence for research purposes. We propose that a pad weight gain of 8 g or less is indicative of urinary continence in men.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".