The evolving clinical picture of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS): A look at 1310 patients over 16 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Two decades of increasing understanding of etiopathogenesis and clinical phenotyping produces an impression the clinical face of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is changing. We sought to retrospectively analyze trends in CP/CPPS patients presenting to our clinic for evaluation over a 16-year period. METHODS: Patients with CP/CPPS presenting to a tertiary clinic were evaluated prospectively from 1998-2014 with Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (CPSI) and UPOINT (urinary, psychosocial, organ-specific, infection, neurogenic, and tenderness) categorization. Patients were stratified in four cohorts, based on year of presentation, and we retrospectively analyzed variations in symptom scores and patterns, UPOINT categorization, and treatment modalities amongst cohorts. RESULTS: Mean age of the 1310 CP/CPPS patients was 44.7 years, while mean CPSI pain, urination, and total scores were 10.6, 4.8, and 23.3, respectively. The most prevalent UPOINT domain, urinary (U) (71.8%) was associated with a higher CPSI urination score (6.3), more frequent penile tip pain (37%), dysuria (48%), and more treatment with alpha-blockers (70%). Increase in UPOINT domains was associated with higher CPSI pain, quality of life (QoL), and total scores. Trends over time included increased prevalence of psychosocial (P), organ (O), and tenderness (T) domains, as well as increased use of alpha-blockers, neuromodulation, and phytotherapy as treatment modalities. There was little variation in age, CPSI scores, and pain locations over time. CONCLUSIONS: The changing clinical face of CP/CPPS reflects the increased recognition of psychosocial (P domain) and pelvic floor pain (T domain), along with the concomitant use of associated therapies. There was little variation of pain/urinary symptom patterns and QoL.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".