Cystourethroscopic findings before and after prostate brachytherapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the role of cystourethroscopy in predicting the risk of postimplant urinary retention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen unselected prostate brachytherapy patients implanted with 125I or 103Pd under spinal or general anesthesia were studied. Following induction of anesthesia, the patient was placed in the lithotomy position and cystourethroscopy performed using a 17 sheath and a 30 degrees lens. Irrigation pressure was 100-cm water. A photograph was taken from the level of the verumontanum. At completion of the implant procedure, a second cystourethroscopy was performed and another photograph taken. The degree of obstruction was rated using a 3-point scale. Each patient was contacted at the time of this report to update postimplant morbidity information with follow-up from 1 to 10 months. RESULTS: The patients' preimplant cystourethroscopic findings ranged from minimal to complete occlusion. There was no clear relationship between the American Urologic Association (AUA) score or preimplant prostate volume and the degree of obstruction. Nearly all patients had some increased physical obstruction following completion of the procedure, but only 8 of 14 patients had an increase in obstruction grade. Six patients were completely obstructed at the completion of the implant procedure, only one of whom developed urinary retention. CONCLUSIONS: Marked variability in cystourethroscopy findings do not appear to have a strong influence on the likelihood of postimplant urinary retention and are not a reliable predictor of retention.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".