Re: Surgeon Variation in Patient Quality of Life after Radical Prostatectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No AccessJournal of UrologyLetter to the Editor/Errata1 Oct 2013Re: Surgeon Variation in Patient Quality of Life after Radical ProstatectomyA. Hartz, T. He, S. Strope, D. R. Cutler, G. Andriole and C. Dechet J Urol 2013; 189: 1295–1301 Abd-El-Rahman M. Abd-El-Barr, Shyam Sukumar, Quoc-Dien Trinh, Florian Roghmann, and Maxine Sun Abd-El-Rahman M. Abd-El-BarrAbd-El-Rahman M. Abd-El-Barr More articles by this author , Shyam SukumarShyam Sukumar More articles by this author , Quoc-Dien TrinhQuoc-Dien Trinh More articles by this author , Florian RoghmannFlorian Roghmann More articles by this author , and Maxine SunMaxine Sun More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.008AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail "Re: Surgeon Variation in Patient Quality of Life after Radical Prostatectomy." The Journal of Urology, 190(4), pp. 1441–1442 References 1 : Radical prostatectomy at academic versus nonacademic institutions: a population based analysis. J Urol2011; 186: 1849. Link, Google Scholar 2 : Impact of hospital and surgeon volume on mortality and complications after prostatectomy. J Urol2008; 180: 155. Link, Google Scholar 3 : Association between hospital and surgeon radical prostatectomy volume and patient outcomes: a systematic review. J Urol2008; 180: 820. Link, Google Scholar 4 : Administrative data sets are inaccurate for assessing functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy. J Urol2011; 185: 1686. Link, Google Scholar 5 : Adverse effects of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy among a nationwide random sample of Medicare-age men. J Clin Oncol2012; 30: 513. Google Scholar 6 : Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: the differential effect of regionalization, procedure volume and operative approach. J Urol2013; 189: 1289. Link, Google Scholar 7 : Outcomes for radical prostatectomy: is it the singer, the song, or both?. J Clin Oncol2012; 30: 476. Google Scholar 8 : Robotic radical prostatectomy with the “veil of Aphrodite” technique: histologic evidence of enhanced nerve sparing. Eur Urol2006; 49: 1065. Google Scholar 9 : High anterior release of the levator fascia improves sexual function following open radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol2008; 180: 2557. Link, Google Scholar 10 : Posterior reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter allows a rapid recovery of continence after transperitoneal videolaparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol2007; 51: 996. Google Scholar 11 : Restoration of posterior aspect of rhabdosphincter shortens continence time after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol2006; 175: 2201. Link, Google Scholar © 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 190Issue 4October 2013Page: 1441-1442 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Abd-El-Rahman M. Abd-El-Barr More articles by this author Shyam Sukumar More articles by this author Quoc-Dien Trinh More articles by this author Florian Roghmann More articles by this author Maxine Sun More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.019 |
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".