MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984222215 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.09.015

Arousal Incontinence in Men Following Radical Prostatectomy: Prevalence, Impact and Predictors

2019· article· en· W2984222215 on OpenAlexaff
Phil Bach, Carolyn A. Salter, Darren Katz, Elizabeth Schofield, Christian J. Nelson, John P. Mulhall

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Cancer InstituteSexual Medicine Society of North America
KeywordsProstatectomyArousalMedicineUrinary incontinenceUrologyClinical psychologyPsychologyInternal medicineProstate cancerSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Arousal incontinence (AI) occurs during physical or psychological sexual stimulation in men and has been described after radical prostatectomy (RP). AIM: The goals of this study are to describe the characteristics of men experiencing AI, outline the nature of their symptoms, and assess for predictors of this condition. METHODS: and Fisher exact tests. Logistic regression in univariable and multivariable analyses were used to define predictors of AI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcomes of this study included prevalence of AI, symptom severity and timing, patient and patient-perceived partner bother, management strategies used by the patients, and concurrent SUI. RESULTS: 226 (32%) men completed the survey. Of these men, almost half (49%) experienced AI at some point during their recovery. Improvement over time was endorsed by 62% of men. 57% of men reported AI in less than half of the sexual encounters, with the amount of urine leakage being equivalent to a tablespoon or less in 88% of men. On univariate analysis, increasing degree of SUI, as measured by pads per day, was associated with AI (P = .01). A lower International Prostate Symptom Score was also associated (P = .05). On multivariate analysis, the absence of hypertension and pads per day were associated with AI (P = .01 for both). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: AI occurred in almost half of the respondents in our series. Thus, AI should be discussed with patients before surgery to allow for realistic expectations. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Strengths of this study include the largest patient population analyzed to date regarding AI and that it is the only one to address timing and patient experiences with the use of validated instruments for erectile and urinary function. Limitations include single-center data, non-validated AI patient-reported outcomes, and poor survey response rate. CONCLUSION: Based on the available data, AI is reported by almost half of men after RP and is associated with SUI. Bach PV, Salter CA, Katz D, et al. Arousal Incontinence in Men Following Radical Prostatectomy: Prevalence, Impact and Predictors. J Sex Med 2020;16:1947-1952.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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