Review of Sexual Preservation After Novel Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Surgical Treatment Modalities From Food and Drug Administration Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Traditional benign prostatic hyperplasia treatment options, such as transurethral resection of the prostate and laser, have focused on addressing urinary symptoms for men; however, these options are associated with a high risk of sexual dysfunction. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess newer technologies (Aquablation therapy, UroLift, and Rezum) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and the impact of preserving sexual function compared with transurethral resection of the prostate. METHODS: A comprehensive review of Food and Drug Administration randomized studies from each of the technologies was carried out. A comparison of 3-year outcomes for International Index of Erectile Function-5 and Male Sexual Health Questionnaire Ejaculatory Function domain short form was analyzed. RESULTS: Aquablation and prostatic urethral lift were the only therapies to show permanent sexual function preservation in both Male Sexual Health Questionnaire Ejaculatory Function domain short form (ejaculatory function) and International Index of Erectile Function-5 (erectile function) at 3 years after treatment. CONCLUSION: For prostates less than 80 cc, Aquablation and prostatic urethral lift were able to demonstrate permanent sexual function preservation in both Male Sexual Health Questionnaire Ejaculatory Function domain short form (ejaculatory function) and International Index of Erectile Function-5 (erectile function) at 3 years after treatment. Bhojani N, Yafi FA, Misrai V, et al. Review of Sexual Preservation After Novel Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Surgical Treatment Modalities From Food and Drug Administration Clinical Trials. Sex Med Rev 2021;9:169-173.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".