Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome is associated with previous colonoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to examine the association between chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) and receipt of a prior colonoscopic examination using a population-based database. METHODS: We used the Taiwan Longitudinal Health Insurance Database 2005 to retrieve the study sample. This study included 3933 patients with CP/CPPS and 3933 age-matched controls. We designated the date of receiving the first diagnosis of CP/CPPS as the index date for cases. We defined the first an ambulatory care visit occurring in the matched year as the index date for the controls. Conditional logistic regressions was used to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for having previously received colonoscopy between cases and controls. RESULTS: We found that 349 (4.44%) of the 7866 sampled patients had previously undergone colonoscopy, including 223 (5.67%) cases and 126 (3.20%) controls (p<0.001). A conditional logistic regression analysis revealed that the adjusted OR of receiving a colonoscopy within three years before the index date was 1.77 (95% CI 1.42-2.23) for cases compared to controls. Furthermore, we found that the youngest group of cases (<40 years) had the greatest adjusted OR for having received colonoscopy within three years before the index date compared to controls (OR 2.81; 95% CI 1.45-5.44); however, in contrast, no significant difference in the adjusted odds of having previously received colonoscopy was observed between cases and controls among the oldest age group (≥60 years). CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that there was an association between antecedent colonoscopy and CP/CPPS.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".