MP45-16 PHOTOSELECTIVE VAPORIZATION OF THE PROSTATE: FAVOURABILITY OF STUDY RESULTS AS A FUNCTION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND INDUSTRIAL SPONSORSHIP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) with the so-called 532nm greenlight laser is an accepted treatment modality for non-neurogenic lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to prostate enlargement.Conflicts of interest (COIs) and industrial sponsorship (IS) have been shown to have a significant impact on the favourability of study results.The aim of the current study was to evaluate outcomes of comparative studies on PVP as a function of COIs and IS.METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched for records in English language.Comparative studies (randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and non-randomized comparative studies [NRCSs]), in which PVP was one treatment modality, were considered eligible.Sponsorship assessment distinguished between IS and non-industrial sponsoring.Two reviewers screened all abstracts and full-text articles independently.Disagreement was resolved either by discussion or by reference to a third independent reviewer.Favorability of outcome was evaluated on a binary scale (PVP-favourable versus PVP-unfavourable) by two independent board-certified urologists external to the remaining study team.Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis.RESULTS: In total, 749 records were screened after manual deduplication.Of these, 286 articles were eligible for full-text screening.Full-text analysis identified 65 studies (25 RCTs [38%], 40 NRCSs [62%]).The majority of the studies mentioned the absence/presence of potential COIs (78%).In contrast, a sponsorship statement was only found in 29% of the investigations.Our analysis identified 56 conflicted authors.In 24 (37%) studies at least one COI was declared (range 1 to 18).Interestingly, searching the author lists of all included studies a second time for more occurrences of the 56 conflicted authors led to the identification 36 initially undeclared COIs in a total of 6 studies.Fifty-six (86%) and 9 (14%) of all included studies were rated as PVP-favourable and PVP-unfavourable, respectively.Among PVP-favourable studies, we could identify both a higher proportion of COI (39% vs. 32%) and IS (7% vs. 0%).CONCLUSIONS: Within the field of comparative PVP literature, COIs are not only highly prevalent but also more frequent in studies reporting PVP-favourable outcomes.IS was exclusively found in PVPfavourable studies.A majority of all RCTs and NRCSs on PVP mention the absence/presence of potential COIs.However, a sponsorship statement was identifiable in only about one third of all studies.
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 | 0.164 | 0.457 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".