Medical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia: Results from a population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In men with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), medical treatment usually represents the first line. We examined the patterns of medical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in the Montreal metropolitan area, within the context of a case control study focusing on incident prostate cancer. METHODS: Cases were 1933 men with incident prostate cancer. Population controls included 1994 age-matched men. In-person interviews collected sociodemographic characteristics and medical history, including BPH diagnosis, its duration, and type of medical treatment received. Baseline characteristics were compared by the chi-square likelihood test for categorical variables and by the students t-test for continuously coded variables. RESULTS: Overall, 1120 participants had history of BPH; of those 53.7% received medical treatment for BPH. Individuals with medically treated BPH, compared to individuals with medically untreated BPH, were older at index date [mean: 66.9 vs. 64.9 years, p<0.001)] and at diagnosis of BPH [mean: 62.3 vs. 60.3 years, p<0.001]. They also had a longer duration of BPH-history [mean: 4.7 vs. 4.0 years, p=0.02]. Regarding medical treatment, mono-therapy was more often used than combination therapy [87.6% vs. 12.4%, p<0.001]. Alpha-blockers (69.9%) were most commonly used as monotherapy, followed by 5alpha-reductase inhibitors (5ARIs) (26.6%). Alpha-blockers plus 5ARIs were the most common combination therapy (97.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence from randomized, controlled trials for better efficacy with use of combination therapy, monotherapy consisting of alpha-blockers or 5ARI, in that order, is most frequently used. Additionally, 5ARI use was more common than previously reported (27% vs. 15%).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".