International Continence Society (ICS) report on the terminology for sexual health in men with lower urinary tract (LUT) and pelvic floor (PF) dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The terminology for sexual health in men with lower urinary tract (LUT) and pelvic floor (PF) dysfunction has not been defined and organized into a clinically based consensus terminology report. The aim of this terminology report is to provide a definitional document within this context that will assist clinical practice and research. METHODS: This report combines the input of the members of sexual health in men with LUT and PF Dysfunction working group of the International Continence Society (ICS), assisted at intervals by external referees. Appropriate core clinical categories and a sub-classification were developed to give coding to definitions. An extensive process of 18 rounds of internal and external review was involved to exhaustively examine each definition, with decision-making by collective opinion (consensus). The Committee retained evidence-based definitions, identified gaps, and updated or discarded outdated definitions. Expert opinions were used when evidence was insufficient or absent. RESULTS: A terminology report for sexual health in men with LUT and PF dysfunction, encompassing 198 (178 NEW) separate definitions, has been developed. It is clinically based with the most common diagnoses defined. Clarity and user-friendliness have been key aims to make it interpretable by practitioners and trainees in all the different speciality groups involved. Conservative and surgical managements are major additions and appropriate figures have been included to supplement and clarify the text. Emerging concepts and measurements, in use in the literature and offering further research potential, but requiring further validation, have been included as an appendix. Interval (5-10 years) review is anticipated to keep the document updated. CONCLUSION: A consensus-based terminology report for sexual health in men with LUT and PF dysfunction has been produced to aid clinical practice and research. The definitions that have been adopted are those that are most strongly supported by the literature at this time or are considered clinical principles or consensus of experts' opinions.
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 | 0.033 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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.
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".