The American Urological Association 2003 guideline on management of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a Canadian opinion.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2003 American Urological Association (AUA) guideline on management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) was released at the AUA annual meeting in Chicago, April 2003 and the diagnosis and treatment recommendations were published later in 2003. It is likely that the 2003 AUA guideline on the management of BPH will have a profound effect on clinical urologic practice in the USA, but its influence on Canadian urological practice will be different because of our socialized medical system, manpower issues, availability of expensive technology and our unique Canadian perspective. The authors review the 2003 AUA guideline on the management of BPH and based on a perspective obtained from recent publications, consensus/consultant meetings, focus groups and anecdotal experience, attempt to put the recommendations into Canadian context. We conclude that the 2003 AUA guideline for the management of BPH is an important document that should be studied, evaluated and understood by Canadian urologists. Although our perspective is clearly different than our US colleagues, it is likely that the guideline will influence the management of BPH in Canada.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".