Outcome analysis of patients with Peyronie’s disease who elect for vacuum erection device therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Peyronie’s disease (PD) affects approximately 0.7–11% of men1 and has numerous proposed treatments. Invasive management options include surgical or injectable therapy, while penile traction therapy with vacuum erection device (VED) represents a noninvasive approach. Our objective is to assess outcomes for patients with PD who opt for noninvasive management. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis for patients with PD who were followed for at least three months and opted for non-invasive therapy. All patients were instructed to initiate VED traction therapy for 10 minutes twice per day. Patients were assessed for degree of PD deformity and erectile function (Sexual Health Inventory for Men [SHIM] score) at initial and subsequent encounters. Results: Fifty-three patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 57 (12) years, and the mean (SD) duration of PD prior to assessment was 25 (15) months. The mean (SD) duration of followup was 14 (11) months. Among untreated patients who did not use a VED, nine showed improvement, 20 remained stable, and four had worsening curvature. The untreated group had a significant change in curvature, with a mean improvement (SD) of 3.6 (12)º (p=0.048). All 20 men who initiated VED traction therapy had an improvement in curvature with a significant mean (SD) improvement of 23 (16)º (p=2.6x10-6). Changes in SHIM scores did vary significantly between groups. No complications were noted. Conclusions: In patients who opt for non-invasive management of PD, VED traction therapy provides improved curvature resolution compared to those who do not use such a device. The limitations of this study include the retrospective nature and a small sample size at a single treatment center.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".