MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133576080 · doi:10.1089/end.2020.0874

Accuracy of Clarius, Handheld Wireless Point-of-Care Ultrasound, in Evaluating Prostate Morphology and Volume Compared to Radical Prostatectomy Specimen Weight: Is There a Difference between Transabdominal <i>vs</i> Transrectal Approach?

2021· article· en· W3133576080 on OpenAlexaff
Ghizlane Moussaoui, Ahmed S. Zakaria, Cristina Negrean, David‐Dan Nguyen, Félix Couture, Côme Tholomier, Iman Sadri, Adel Arezki, Russell Schwartz, Dean Elterman, Vincent Misraï, Naeem Bhojani, Thomas Herrmann, Kevin C. Zorn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endourology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstatectomyProstateUltrasoundUrologyBody mass indexOpen ProstatectomyNuclear medicineRadiologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Prostate size estimation is a valuable clinical measure widely utilized in urology. This study evaluated the accuracy of preoperative transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) compared to radical prostatectomy specimens and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) in estimating prostate volume and identifying presence of median lobe, across different size groups, using the standard ellipsoid formula. The effect of median lobe on accuracy was also assessed. Materials and Methods: Ninety-eight men undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were enrolled in this study. Preoperative evaluation of prostate volume was done using measurements obtained from TAUS using the Clarius C3 handheld wireless point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) and from TRUS Clarius EC7. Participants were grouped based on prostate size (&lt;30, 30–60, and &gt;60 g). Mean absolute percentage of error was used to evaluate accuracy. Mean percentage of error determined if there was an overestimation or underestimation. Correlation between each TAUS size group, true prostate weight and TRUS was assessed. Results: Irrespective of body mass index, TAUS accurately identified median lobe in all men. No statistically significant difference was found between specimen weight and TAUS prostate size for the &gt;60 g group. Among this same group, a strong correlation was noted between specimen weight and TAUS prostate size ( r = 0.911, p &lt; 0.001). There was also a strong correlation between TAUS and TRUS measurements for this group ( r = 0.950, p &lt; 0.001). Presence of median lobe did not have an impact on measurement accuracy. Conclusions: Bedside handheld wireless POCUS provides rapid, inexpensive, noninvasive, and clinically accurate TAUS prostate assessments for larger prostates. Such features as identifying median lobes and measuring prostate volumes are valuable tools, whereas patient counseling on lower urinary tract symptoms, elevated prostate-specific antigen, and benign prostate hyperplasia are surgical options.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EndourologySame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207