408 Failing Our Patients - Intracavernous Injection Treatment Success is Dependent on Optimized Testing and Teaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The success or failure of intracavernous injection (ICI) therapy is often dependent on health care provider (HCP) factors. Success in the office should be followed by success at home, yet in our experience there is a not insignificant number of men who are taught ICI and present for evaluation of surgery (penile prosthesis - PP) because of ICI failure. In our subspecialty clinic, the daily volume for team-based care under surgeon and registered practical nurse (RPN) is 4 new consult/cavernous injection and stimulation (CIS) test appointments, 12 cavernous injection and stimulation tests, 4 ICI teaches (based on successful CIS tests to EHS 4 or DS Trimix 1 cc test giving maximum usable response). We present observations for optimizing ICI success. All patients with a CIS test performed from January 1, 2016 to May 30, 2016 were reviewed. Twenty-one patients were referred for failed ICI or for PP surgery due to failed ED treatments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".