Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a longstanding surgical treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).The thulium fiber laser is the newest laser currently available and possibly offers better hemostatic properties; however, there is a paucity of data on outcomes in BPH treatment.This prospective study aimed to compare the safety profile, as well as the intraoperative and clinical outcomes between HoLEP with Moses technology (m-HoLEP) and thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (TFLEP).Methods: Twenty patients were included in this prospective study after obtaining institutional review board approval.Two experienced surgeons were involved in this study: one performed 10 m-HoLEP procedures, while the other performed 10 TFLEP procedures.Demographic information of patients was collected, as well as intraoperative variables and complications.Statistical analyses were performed on SPSS Statistics Version 27.Results: TFLEP and m-HoLEP patients were similar in age (72.3 vs 75.4 years, respectively, p=0.45) and prostate size (131.3vs 123.3 cc, respectively, p=0.67).There was no difference in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (p=0.50) and anticoagulant usage (p=0.54) between both groups.The duration of morcellation was similar in both groups (p=0.44).Hemoglobin reduction was similar in m-HoLEP compared to TFLEP (18.0 vs 17.3 g/L, respectively, p=0.67).Length of hospitalization was comparable in both study arms (p=0.16).There was no difference in mean duration (p=0.23) or rate (p=0.54) of enucleation between both laser modalities.Complications, such as urosepsis, re-admission, and transfusion, did not vary between m-HoLEP and TFLEP groups.Conclusions: Although preliminary, the results of this study demonstrate similar perioperative and clinical outcomes for TFLEP and m-HoLEP.This study is ongoing, with a total recruitment of 50 per arm planned and an anticipated followup period of one year.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.432 | 0.176 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".