MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919757373 · doi:10.5680/lhuii000014

Evaluation of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome

2019· article· en· W2919757373 on OpenAlexaff
Giuseppe Magistro, J. Curtis Nickel

Bibliographic record

VenuePUBLISSO · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstatitisMedicinePelvic painLower urinary tract symptomsPsychosocialPhysical therapyMedical diagnosisQuality of life (healthcare)Chronic painSexual dysfunctionDifferential diagnosisUrinary systemIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicineProstatePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a common condition defined as chronic (at least 3 months) pain or discomfort in the pelvic region, variably associated with lower urinary tract symptoms, sexual dysfunction and psychosocial consequences with considerable impact on quality of life. Since the exact pathophysiology underlying CP/CPPS is still unknown, no specific test for a definitive diagnosis is available. The main objectives for evaluation are to exclude differential diagnoses associated with pelvic pain and to identify the individual clinical profile or “picture” relevant for a tailored treatment concept. Keystones of basic evaluation include a thorough patient history and comprehensive assessment of symptoms based on subjective outcome measures, like the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI), and clinical phenotyping classification systems, such as UPOINTs. Further diagnostic procedures are adapted to the patient. An effective personalized multi-modal treatment concept relies on this accurate basic evaluation and regular follow-ups to monitor treatment response with the option for modification.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePUBLISSOSame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207