Phase II Randomized, Clinical Trial Evaluating 2 Schedules of Low-Intensity Shockwave Therapy for the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate safety and clinical response of Low-intensity Shockwave Therapy (Li-SWT) for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. MATERIALS & METHODS: A single-institution, 2 arm, phase II randomized clinical trial was conducted between February 2017 and April 2019. Patients were randomized into 2 groups, with Li-SWT delivering a total of 3,600 shocks over 5 days (720 once a day, Group A) or over 2 weeks (600 once a day, 3 times a week, Group B). Patients were evaluated for the safety of therapy and completed the International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function domain and the Erectile Hardness Scale assessment at baseline, and at 1, 3, and 6 months visits. RESULTS: Among 87 evaluable patients, 45 and 42 were allocated to Groups A and B treatment schedules, respectively, and 80 patients (40 per group) completed the 6-month evaluation. No adverse events were reported during treatment or during follow-up. There were statistically significant (P < .05) improvements in International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function score (mean increase of 2.7 [95% CI = 1.2, 4.2] and 2.7 points [95% CI = 1.4, 4.1] for Groups A and B, respectively) and in Erectile Hardness Scale (mean increase of 0.6 points (95% CI = 0.3, 0.8) and 0.5 (95% CI = 0.2, 0.8) for Groups A and B, respectively) at 6 months, with no differences between groups. CONCLUSION: No difference in outcomes was found when Li-SWT 3,600 shocks were delivered over 1 or 2 weeks at 6 months follow-up and both schedules were safe with no adverse events during or after treatment. Further trials with longer follow-up and sham arm will provide valuable information regarding treatment efficacy and durability. Patel P, Katz J, Lokeshwar SD, et al. Phase II Randomized, Clinical Trial Evaluating 2 Schedules of Low-Intensity Shockwave Therapy for the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction. Sex Med 2020;8:214-222.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".