MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MP35-09 LOWER URINARY TRACT SYMPTOM NON-RESPONSE (″LUTS FAILURE″) AFTER URETHROPLASTY

2020· article· en· W3022118584 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dave Chapman, Jordan Bekkema, Keith Rourke

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrethroplastyMedicineUrethral strictureLower urinary tract symptomsInternational Prostate Symptom ScoreCystoscopyUrinary systemSurgeryUrologyUrethraInternal medicineProstate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Urethroplasty is a highly effective treatment for urethral stricture. However, some patients fail to experience significant improvement in lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) despite being stricture-free. We aim to identify the incidence of ″LUTS failure″ after urethroplasty and examine associated factors. METHODS: Patients undergoing urethroplasty over a 6-year period (January 2012 – December 2018) were offered enrollment in a study examining urinary function after urethroplasty. Urinary function and urinary quality of life (UQOL) were assessed pre-operatively and at 6 months postoperatively using the international prostate symptoms score (IPSS). ″LUTS failure″ was defined as less than 3-point improvement in IPSS. Stricture recurrence was defined as the inability to pass a 16Fr flexible cystoscope. Patients not completing pre- and post-operative IPSS questionnaires and patients with stricture recurrence were excluded from analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize findings while multivariate binary logistic regression was used to determine the association between clinical factors and LUTS failure. RESULTS: Of the 828 patients undergoing urethroplasty over this period, 387 patients completed IPSS scores pre- and post-operatively and of these 372 (96.1%) were stricture free on cystoscopy at 6 months. Mean patient age was 49.5 years, mean stricture length was 4.3cm and 84.4% of patients failed prior endoscopic treatment. Stricture location, etiology and urethroplasty technique were typical of that found in most industrialized nations. As expected, mean IPSS (19.0 vs. 5.4; p<0.0001) and median UQOL (5 vs. 1; p<0.0001) were improved post-urethroplasty. Despite being stricture free on cystoscopy, 13.7% of patients did not experience improvement in IPSS (″LUTS failure″) and 10.2% did not report improvement in UQOL. On multivariate binary logistic regression, increasing patient age (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.06, p=0.006), lichen sclerosus (OR 7.6, 95% CI 1.1-51.0, p=0.04) and hypospadias strictures (OR 8.3, 95% CI 1.3-54.0, p=0.03) were associated with "LUTS failure" while stricture location (p=0.46), length (p=0.07), previous urethroplasty (p=0.86), prior endoscopic treatment (p=0.50), type of urethroplasty (p=0.17) and other etiologies were not. Increasing patient age was the sole factor associated with a lack of improvement in UQOL (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.06, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: While the majority of patients experience improvement in lower urinary tract function after urethroplasty, 13.7% experience ″LUTS failure″ despite being stricture-free on cystoscopy and 10.2% report no improvement in UQOL. Both occurrences are independently associated with increasing patient age and may be related to concurrent benign prostatic hyperplasia or alternately detrusor dysfunction related to longstanding bladder outlet obstruction. Source of Funding: Northern Alberta Urology Foundation

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)0.001
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of UrologySame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207