MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3129631111 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.7252

Canadian Urological Association clinical practice guideline on testosterone deficiency in men: Evidence-based Q&A

2021· article· en· W3129631111 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ethan D. Grober, Yonah Krakowsky, Mohit Khera, Daniel T. Holmes, Lee Jc, John Grantmyre, Premal Patel, Richard A. Bebb, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Jeffrey Campbell, Serge Carrier, Abraham Morgentaler

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal and reproductive studies
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of ManitobaDalhousie UniversityMcGill UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British ColumbiaWomen's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineMandateMedicineFamily medicineScientific evidenceClinical PracticeMEDLINEProfessional associationMedical educationPathologyPolitical sciencePublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

after an adequate therapeutic trial (approximately 3 months).5 There is no need for tapered dose titration when discontinuing of testosterone therapy (LE-high, strong recommendation). SummaryTestosterone deficiency is common among Canadian men and is associated with significant health conditions that negatively impact quality of life.Based on a national needs-assessment of Canadian physicians, the diagnosis, management and risks associated with TD was identified as an area in need of educational tools and standard setting to enhance the quality of clinical practice.The current guideline is offered as a practical, user-friendly, evidence-based reference to support healthcare providers and ensure that men in need of testosterone therapy are diagnosed and treated effectively and safely.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicHormonal and reproductive studiesFrench-language works237,207