MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200476087 · doi:10.48083/mlxk5817

One-Year Outcomes of the ROBUST II Study Evaluating the Use of a Drug-Coated Balloon for Treatment of Urethral Stricture

2021· article· en· W4200476087 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jessica DeLong, Michael Ehlert, Bradley A. Erickson, Kaiser J. Robertson, Ramón Virasoro, Sean P. Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueSociété Internationale d’Urologie Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUrethral strictureBalloonSurgeryErectile functionErectile dysfunctionClinical endpointUrologyUrethraRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To report 1-year results of the ROBUST II study investigating the safety and efficacy of a paclitaxel-coated balloon for the treatment of recurrent urethral strictures. Methods Subjects were adult men with a single anterior urethral stricture ≤ 3 cm in length and at least 2 prior stricture treatments. After treatment with the Optilume urethral drug-coated balloon (DCB), subjects were followed through 1 year. The primary safety endpoint was the rate of treatment-related serious complications at 90 days post-procedure. Efficacy outcomes included symptomatic assessments, erectile function measured using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), Qmax, and anatomic success. Results Sixteen men with an average of 4.1 prior dilations were treated with the DCB. Anatomic success was achieved at 6 months in 73%. Average IPSS improved from 18.4 to 6.0 at 1 year (P < 0.001). Qmax improved from 6.9 mL/sec to 20.8 mL/sec (P < 0.001). There was no change in IIEF. Four subjects received additional treatment within 1 year. There were no treatment-related serious complications. Conclusions Short-term follow-up of men with urethral stricture treated with the Optilume DCB showed durable anatomic results at 6 months and sustained symptomatic improvement through 1 year. Treatment with the device was safe.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.249
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.155 · 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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociété Internationale d’Urologie JournalSame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207