Patients' Perspectives on Attributes While Choosing Minimally Invasive Surgery for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Procedures: Experience from Men Undergoing Water Vapor Thermal Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To understand which attributes men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) undergoing water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT) find important while considering treatment options for the condition. Methods: Men ( n = 170) with lower urinary tract symptoms due to BPH who underwent WVTT between April 2019 and November 2020 in a Toronto urologic clinic were invited to participate in an online survey. The survey included eight attributes of BPH surgical procedures and five attributes of WVTT. Patients were asked how important each attribute was to them before they selected a BPH procedure and decided to undergo WVTT. Results: In total, 128 respondents (75%) completed the survey. A majority of the respondents were White (88%), married (83%), and aged 60–69 years old (45%). Approximately 97% of respondents rated the ability to avoid further BPH treatments as “very important” or “extremely important,” followed by duration to return to normal activities (79%), and wait times to receive the procedure (57%). Only 47% of patients reported that postprocedural catheterization was important. For WVTT, 98% of the respondents rated avoiding more invasive surgical treatments and 88% rated a quick recovery as important attributes. Conclusions: Among men with moderate-to-severe BPH undergoing WVTT, the most important attributes for selecting a BPH surgical procedure were avoiding further BPH treatments, returning quickly to normal activities, and reducing treatment wait times. Most men chose WVTT to avoid more invasive procedures and have a quick recovery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".