MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158368276 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.230

A rare but serious complication of GreenLight HPS photoselective vaporization of the prostate: prostatic capsular perforation with bilateral thigh urinomas and osteitis pubis

2013· article· en· W2158368276 on OpenAlexaffvenue
David Harriman, Brian E. Mayson, Ercole Leone

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstatePerforationSurgeryComplicationUrologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of lasers to perform photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) has been widely accepted as a safe and effective treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia with very few reported complications. To date, most of the published data report outcomes for the 80-W potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser. A more potent laser, the 120-W GreenLight HPS, was introduced in 2006 and provides more efficient vaporization of prostatic tissue and decreased operating times. Despite these benefits, the increased energy applied to the prostate evokes concerns of potential serious complications, including capsular perforation and injury to adjacent structures. A more powerful laser system, the 180-W GreenLight XPS laser (American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, MN) has recently become available. We report a rare but serious complication of GreenLight HPS PVP resulting in prostatic capsular perforation with urinary extravasation, presenting with bilateral thigh urinomas and osteitis pubis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207