MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790919173 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.5255

2018 Canadian Urological Association guideline for Peyronie's disease and congenital penile curvature

2018· article· en· W2790919173 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Anthony J Bella, Lee Jc, Ethan D. Grober, Serge Carrier, François Bénard, Gerald Brock

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversité de MontréalUniversity of TorontoMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of CalgaryOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeyronie's diseaseMedicinePsychosocialQuality of life (healthcare)GuidelineDiseasePsychological interventionEtiologyRandomized controlled trialErectile dysfunctionIntensive care medicineGerontologyPhysical therapyInternal medicinePsychiatryPathologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peyronie’s disease (PD) is a highly prevalent condition that affects the physical and psychosocial well-being and quality of life (QoL) for thousands of Canadian men. The specific etiology of PD remains poorly understood and there remains a paucity of randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating treatment interventions.1-3 PD can be found in up to 8.9% of men, a remarkable increase in cited prevalence that is attributable to growing awareness (as historical data suggested a rate of less than 1%); the burden of disease is significant, and PD is often present in otherwise healthy men. The following guidelines were crafted by the committee with a full awareness of the limitations of the literature, and sought to provide actionable recommendations to guide PD care in the Canadian health system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0100.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations69
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207