Clinical Implication of Enlarged Prostate in Patients with the Ileal Pouch-anal Anastomosis for Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Enlarged prostate is often noticed in patients with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) in our clinical practice. The aims were to identify the factors associated with enlarged prostate and to investigate its clinical implications. Methods: IPAA patients with available prostate imaging after IPAA were included. Prostate length and width were measured in the axial plane and height in coronal plane. Prostate volume was calculated with the formula (length × width × height) × n /6. A volume greater than 40 cm 3 was used to define enlarged prostate. Results: Prostate enlargement was found in 58 (24.8%) out of 234 patients. Factors associated with prostate enlargement included advanced age at imaging examination (55.6 ± 11.5 vs. 41.3 ± 13.6 years, P < 0.0001), age at pouch surgery (46.0 ± 11.8 vs. 32.5 ± 12.9 years, P<0.0001), and the presence of an S-pouch (6.9% vs. 1.1%, P = 0.03). Postoperative use of biologics was less common in patients with enlarged prostate (5.2% vs. 17%, P = 0.03). However, pouch duration was comparable (10.0 ± 5.9 vs. 8.8 ± 6.8 years, P = 0.2) and pouch failure rate was similar. A trend towards an increased risk for acute pouchitis in patients with enlarged prostate was noticed (19% vs. 9.1%, P = 0.06). The association of S-pouch (odds ratio: 7.2, 95% confidence interval: 1.1 - 46.4) and enlarged prostate remained significant after adjusting for age, acute pouchitis, and redo pouch on multivariate analysis. Conclusions: Prostate enlargement appears to be uncommon after IPAA and it was associated with S-pouch configuration and advanced age. Enlarged prostate in the setting of IPAA does not seem to have adverse impact on pouch outcomes, although there is a trend in correlation between enlarged prostate and acute pouchitis. Gastroenterol Res. 2018;11(1):5-10 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/gr975e
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".