The effect of alpha blockers on uroflowmetric parameters in different voiding positions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction:We assessed the effect of different voiding positions on uroflowmetric parameters and post-void residual (PVR) urine volume in symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients.We also evaluated the effect of alpha blockers on PVR in different voiding positions.Methods: The study was performed with 110 BPH patients over 50 years old.In total, 4 uroflowmetries were performed in all patients: 2 patients in the sitting position and 2 in the standing position.PVR was measured with transabdominal ultrasonography.Also, patients were divided into two groups according to the alpha adrenergic blocker treatment; the effect of this treatment on their uroflowmetric parameters in different positions was evaluated.Results: Maximum flow rate (Qmax) and average flow rate (Qave) were significantly higher in patients in the sitting position, but there were no differences in other uroflowmetric parameters and PVR volume (Qmax: 15.5±5.9mL/s vs. 13.7±5.2mL/s, Qave: 11.4±4.6 mL/s vs. 10.7±3.9 mL/s, respectively; p < 0.05).The Qmax and Qave were significantly higher in sitting position, compared to the standing position, in both alpha adrenergic treatment and non-treated groups; again, there were no differences in other uroflowmetric parameters and PVR volume. Conclusion:Qmax and Qave values were significantly higher in the sitting position.Alpha blockers did not affect any change.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".