MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889095211 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.11.325

Sexual Rehabilitation After Treatment for Prostate Cancer—Part 1: Recommendations From the Fourth International Consultation for Sexual Medicine (ICSM 2015)

2017· article· en· W2889095211 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Salonia, Ganesh Adaikan, Serge Carrier, Amr El-Meliegy, Kostas Hatzimouratidis, Andrew McCullough, Abraham Morgentaler, Luiz Otávio Torres, Mohit Khera

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErectile dysfunctionMedicineSexual medicineSexual functionProstatectomyProstate cancerSexual dysfunctionRehabilitationGynecologyGeneral surgeryPhysical therapyCancerSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Sexual dysfunction is common in patients after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer. AIM: To provide the International Consultation for Sexual Medicine (ICSM) 2015 recommendations concerning prevention and management strategies for post-RP erectile function impairment in terms of preoperative patient characteristics and intraoperative factors that could influence erectile function recovery. METHODS: A literature search was performed using Google and PubMed databases for English-language original and review articles published up to August 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Levels of evidence (LEs) and grades of recommendations (GRs) based on a thorough analysis of the literature and committee consensus. RESULTS: Nine recommendations are provided by the ICSM 2015 committee on sexual rehabilitation after RP. Recommendation 1 states that clinicians should discuss the occurrence of postsurgical erectile dysfunction (temporary or permanent) with every candidate for RP (expert opinion, clinical principle). Recommendation 2 states that validated instruments for assessing erectile function recovery such as the International Index of Erectile Function and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaires are available to monitor EF recovery after RP (LE = 1, GR = A). Recommendation 3 states there is insufficient evidence that a specific surgical technique (open vs laparoscopic vs robot-assisted radical prostatectomy) promotes better results in postoperative EF recovery (LE = 2, GR = C). Recommendation 4 states that recognized predictors of EF recovery include but are not limited to younger age, preoperative EF, and bilateral nerve-sparing surgery (LE = 2, GR = B). Recommendation 5 states that patients should be informed about key elements of the pathophysiology of postoperative erectile dysfunction, such as nerve injury and cavernous venous leak (expert opinion, clinical principle). CONCLUSIONS: This article discusses Recommendations 1 to 5 of the ICSM 2015 committee on sexual rehabilitation after RP. Salonia A, Adaikan G, Buvat J, et al. Sexual Rehabilitation After Treatment for Prostate Cancer-Part 1: Recommendations From the Fourth International Consultation for Sexual Medicine (ICSM 2015). J Sex Med 2017;14:285-296.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.008
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.309 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations75
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207