The Management of Lower Urinary Tract Obstruction in Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To determine the optimal time to wait for urination ability restoration after urethral catheterization and anti - androgen treatment, in cases of acute urinary retention and advanced prostate cancer. Methods: We enrolled 26 patients with histologically confirmed prostate cancer after transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate and CT or MRI proven advanced stages (T3-T4). We evaluated the dynamic changes of the following factors; IPSS, QoL, Vmax, residual urine, serum concentration of PSA at the following periods; before hormonal treatment, 1, 3 and 6 months after hormonal treatment. Results: How long we have to wait after urethral catheter insertion and hormonal treatment for voiding ability restoration? Our data analyses revealed the answer to this question. The dynamic changes of all the parameters (IPSS, QoL, Vmax, PSA) we studied disclosed interesting regularity. The consequent comparative analyses of parameters showed statistically significant changes only 1 month after anti - androgen treatment. These changes indicate that the prostate cancerous process is significantly suppressed within 1 month after hormonal treatment and there is no point to wait more than 1 month. Conclusion: Analyzing our data we obtained versatile evidence, that in advanced prostate cancer and acute urinary retention cases the optimal time to wait for sufficient voiding is 1 month period after permanent catheter insertion and anti - androgen treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".