Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction and Objectives: Men with severe stress urinary incontinence after a radical prostatectomy can use penile clamps either temporarily or permanently.We developed a new incontinence clamp (Prototype) and in this study we compared it to the two most commonly used commercial clamps (Cunningham and Dribblestop) in order to assess its efficiency, handling and comfort.Methods: We did a prospective randomized block design clinical study.Eighteen patients with severe stress urinary incontinence after a radical prostatectomy were randomized and seventeen completed the study.Validated questionnaires (ICIQ-UI SF, IPSS, EORTC QLQ-PR25), non-validated questionnaires and weekly incontinence diaries were used to evaluate each patient over a period of 6 weeks.Weekly evaluations were done.Each patient tested each clamp in a randomized order for one week at home.Results: An improvement in incontinence ranging from significant to complete was found in 76.5% of subjects with the Cunningham, 82.4% with the Dribblestop and 29.4% with the prototype (p=0.01 with Cochran).Using ICIQ-UI SF questionnaire, the median score without clamp was 17.0 [14.50-20.50],12.0 [7.75-15.50](p=0.024) with the Cunningham, 12.0 [9.0-15.0](p=0.002) with the Dribblestop and 13.0 [11.00-15.50](p=0.07) with the proptotype.Subjects identified as their preferred choice the Dribblestop (41.2 %), the Cunningham (35.3%) and the prototype at (23.5%) (p=0.662).Only non-parametric tests were used.Conclusions: Penile clamps improved severe stress urinary incontinence after a radical prostatectomy.The frequency of incontinence and amount of urine loss were lower with the three tested clamps.The Dribblestop was the preferred clamp in our study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.563 | 0.181 |
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".