MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210999425 · doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2022.01.001

Penile Modeling in Peyronie's Disease: A Systematic Review of the Literature

2022· review· en· W4210999425 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Medicine Reviews · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Edinburgh
KeywordsPeyronie's diseaseErectile dysfunctionMedicineSystematic reviewUrologyDiseaseMEDLINESurgeryInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Penile modeling to correct the penile curvature in Peyronie's disease (PD) may be achieved manually (intra-operatively or post-injection) or by using assisted devices (penile traction, vacuum device, or penile prosthesis). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and satisfaction associated with penile modeling in patients with PD. METHODS: A PROSPERO registered (CRD42021241729) systematic search in MEDLINE and Cochrane Library was done following PRISMA. PICO: Studies were deemed eligible if they assessed patients with PD (P) undergoing modeling procedures (I) with or without a comparative group(C) evaluating the efficacy, safety, or patient satisfaction (O). Retrospective and prospective primary studies were included. The primary outcome measure is the change in penile curvature after modeling. The secondary outcome measures are the change in stretched penile length, adverse events, and patient satisfaction after modeling. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies, involving 1,238 patients were included. Most studies (13, 56.5%) evaluated penile traction therapy. The studies were of low and intermediate quality (mean Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score of 5.7 and mean Jadad score of 3.3) with a mean level of evidence of 3.4. The mean penile curvature at baseline was between 31 and 80.8 degrees. Nine (39.1%) studies found a significant improvement (P < .05) of penile curvature after penile modeling, ranging between 11.7, and 37.2 degrees. An increase in mean stretched penile length was reported in 7 (30.4%) articles, varying between 0.4, and 1.8 cm. Serious complications such as penile prosthesis malfunctions (3.3-11.1%) and urethral injuries (2.9%) were only reported for intra-operative manual modeling. CONCLUSION: Although individual studies have noted improvement in penile curvature and stretched penile length, specific recommendations regarding penile modeling in PD cannot be provided due to limited evidence available. Further RCTs with adequate sample size, validated assessment tools, and longer follow-up are needed. Krishnappa P, Manfredi C, Sinha M et al. Penile Modeling in Peyronie's Disease: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Sex Med Rev 2022;10:427-443.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.228 · 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