Age-stratified continence outcomes of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Incontinence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) significantly impacts quality of life. This study aims to compare the age-stratified continence outcomes in Canadian men undergoing RARP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on a prospectively maintained database of 1737 patients who underwent RARP for localized prostate cancer between 2007 and 2019. Patients were stratified into five groups based on age: group 1, ≤ 54 years (n = 245); group 2, 55-59 years (n = 302) ; group 3, 60-64 years (n = 386); group 4, 65-69 years (n = 348); and group 5, ≥ 70 years (n = 116). Functional outcomes were assessed up to 36 months. Log-rank and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to compare the time to recovery of pad-free continence by age group. RESULTS: Continence rates of groups 1 to 5 were respectively 90.2%, 79.1%, 80.4%, 71.4%, and 59.8% at 1-year follow up (p < 0.001). After 3 years, groups 1 through 5 had continence rates of 97%, 91.7%, 89.3%, 81.4%, and 77.6%, respectively (p < 0.001). Median time to recovery of continence was 58, 135, 140, 152 and 228 days, respectively. Among men who remained incontinent, older patients consistently required more pads. In Cox proportional hazard model, groups 2, 3, 4 and 5 were respectively 33% (p < 0.001), 34% (p < 0.001), 33% (p = 0.001), and 41% (p = 0.005) more likely to remain incontinent compared to group 1. CONCLUSIONS: Age is associated with significantly lower rates of continence recovery, longer time to recovery of continence, and more severe cases of incontinence after RARP.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".