Proportion of tadalafil‐treated patients with clinically meaningful improvement in lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia – integrated data from 1 499 study participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the proportion of patients achieving clinically meaningful improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH-LUTS) with tadalafil using two definitions of response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Post hoc integrated analysis of four placebo-controlled studies in men (aged ≥45 years; International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS] of ≥13; maximum urinary flow rate [Q(max)] of ≥4 to ≤15 mL/s) with BPH-LUTS randomised to tadalafil 5 mg (752 patients) or placebo (747) for 12 weeks after a 4-week placebo run-in. Responders were defined as having a total IPSS improvement of ≥3 points or ≥25% from randomisation to endpoint (Week 12). Response status was calculated per patient, and relative benefit and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) of tadalafil vs placebo was calculated using a logistic Generalised Mixed Model for Repeated Measures. RESULTS: Tadalafil 5 mg once daily resulted in a significantly greater proportion of patients achieving a ≥3-point IPSS improvement (71.1% and 56.0% for tadalafil and placebo patients, respectively [OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.5, 2.4; P < 0.001]) and achieving a ≥25% improvement in total IPSS randomisation to endpoint (61.7% and 45.5% for tadalafil and placebo patients, respectively [OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.6, 2.5; P < 0.001]). CONCLUSION: About two-thirds of tadalafil-treated patients achieve a clinically meaningful improvement in BPH-LUTS symptoms, based on two different definitions of responder status.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".