Overview of the 2015 ICS Consensus Conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The AMS800™ device is considered to be the "gold-standard" when male incontinence surgical treatment is contemplated. Despite 40 years of experience, it is still a specialized procedure with a number of challenges. Here, we present the recommendations issued from the AUS Consensus Group, regarding indications, management and follow-up AMS800™ implantation or revision. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Under ICS auspices, an expert panel met on July 10, 2015 in Chicago, IL, USA in an attempt to reach a consensus on diverse issues related to the AMS800™ device. Participants were selected by the two co-chairs on the basis of their practice in a University hospital and their experience: number of implanted AUSs according to AMS (American Medical System Holdings Inc., Minnetonka, MN) records and/or major published articles. Topics listed were the result of a pre-meeting email brainstorming by all participants. The co-chairs distributed topics randomly to all participants, who then had to propose a statement on each topic for approval by the conference after a short evidence-based presentation, when possible. RESULTS: The present recommendations, based on the most recent and relevant data available in literature as well as expert opinions, successively address multiple specific and problematic issues associated with the AMS800™ trough a 6-chapter structure: pre-operative assessment, pre operative challenges, implantation technique, post-operative care, trouble-shooting, and special populations. CONCLUSION: These guidelines undoubtedly constitute a reference document, which will help urologists to carefully select patients and apply the most adapted management to implantation, follow-up and trouble-shooting of the AMS800™. Neurourol. Urodynam. 35:437-443, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.074 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.010 |
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".