Canadian guidelines for the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop the first Canadian guidelines for the management of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: These guidelines, developed under a mandate provided by the Canadian Urological Association (CUA), were a collaborative effort between the CUA guidelines committee and the Canadian Prostate Health Council. BPH guidelines developed by the American Urological Association, the European Association of Urology, the World Health Organization International Consultation on BPH, and similar committees from Germany, Sweden and Australia were reviewed. The committee further reviewed a systematic literature search, updated to May 2004, and systematically derived Canadian urological opinion data. RESULTS: The subsequent Canadian BPH guidelines were developed as an evidence based consensus among the committee members. Mandatory evaluation includes history, physical examination and urinalysis, while a symptom inventory and PSA in selected patients are recommended. Serum creatinine, uroflow, voiding diary, post void residual and sexual function questionnaire are optional. Unless there is an indication, other related tests are not recommended. Treatment choices should be governed by the severity of the symptoms, bother and patient preference. Guidelines for medical, surgical and minimally invasive treatment as well as special considerations are described in terms of guideline, option and recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic and treatment guidelines for BPH reflect the Canadian social priorities, economics, socialized medical practice, manpower issues, and medicolegal considerations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.009 |
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".