MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Role of α <sub>1</sub> ‐blockers in chronic prostatitis syndromes

2008· review· en· W2169246892 on OpenAlexaff
J. Curtis Nickel

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTamsulosinAlfuzosinMedicineProstatitisTerazosinLower urinary tract symptomsUrologyPlaceboPelvic painInternal medicineProstateSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Category III chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is the most commonly diagnosed prostatitis syndrome. CP/CPPS is characterized by lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) of which pain (particularly perineal pain and pain on ejaculation) and dysfunctional voiding cause the greatest morbidity and poor quality of life. There is no standard treatment for CP/CPPS. Patients report only transient relief of symptoms from currently available therapies and are frequently required to change treatments. The origin of LUTS and possibly the pelvic pain (e.g. on ejaculation) is thought to be prolonged smooth muscle contraction in the bladder and prostate, caused by alpha(1)-adrenoceptor activation. alpha(1)-Blockers are not indicated in the treatment of CP/CPPS but clinical experience suggests that they might be of benefit, possibly by promoting smooth muscle relaxation. Encouraging results of three phase II, randomized, placebo-controlled trials evaluating (using a validated instrument) the efficacy of alfuzosin, tamsulosin and terazosin in alpha(1)-blocker-naïve patients with CP/CPPS, support this hypothesis. The National Institute of Health and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases are currently conducting a large phase III trial in 272 newly diagnosed and alpha(1)-blocker-naïve CP/CPPS patients randomized to received alfuzosin 10 mg once daily or placebo for 12 weeks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations43
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207