Con: does shockwave therapy have a place in the treatment of Peyronie’s disease?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy (ESWT) has been used to treat various urological conditions such as nephrolithiasis and erectile dysfunction. The use of ESWT for Peyronie’s disease (PD) has been a subject of debate since Bellorofobate et al. published the first report on the use of ESWT on a PD patient in 1989 (1). The mechanism of action of ESWT in PD patients is still unknown mainly due to the lack of an animal model truly resembling PD. Multiple theories had been hypothesized with regards to its mechanism of action. Levine hypothesized that EWST causes destruction and lysis of the plaque by inducing an inflammatory response that attracts macrophages to the plaque site, leading to changes in vascularity and plaque resorption (2). In addition, direct trauma caused by ESWT may produce scar formation on the contralateral side of the penile shaft and, thus, correct the curvature. The other possible theory is that ESWT causes degradation of the plaque leading to an increase of the surface area in contact with the drugs introduced either locally or systemically (3). None of these theories have, however, yet to be scientifically proven.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.007 |
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".