Age-stratified potency outcomes of bilateral nerve sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study aims to report age-stratified potency outcomes in men undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on a database of 1737 patients who underwent RARP for localized prostate cancer between 2007 and 2019. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients undergoing bilateral nerve-sparing RARP. Exclusion criteria were preoperative Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) score < 17 and postoperative androgen deprivation therapy or radiotherapy. Patients were divided into four cohorts based on age: ≤ 54 years (group 1); 55-59 years (group 2); 60-64 years (group 3) and ≥ 65 years (group 4). Functional outcomes were measured up to 36 months. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to compare the time to recovery of potency stratified by age groups using log-rank testing. RESULTS: A total of 542 patients met the selection criteria. Potency rates were significantly different between groups. Groups 1 through 4 demonstrated potency recovery rates of 64.2%, 52.3%, 36.6% and 20.7% at 1-year follow up, respectively. After 3 years, groups 1 through 4 had potency rates of 77.9%, 67.0%, 50.5% and 35.0%, respectively. Recovery of potency was achieved at a median time after surgery of 199, 340 and 853 days for groups 1-3, respectively. The Cox proportional hazard model showed that older age, higher body mass index (BMI), and lower preoperative SHIM score were associated with significantly higher rates of impotence. CONCLUSION: This study shows that RARP has acceptable potency outcomes, regardless of age. However, patient factors, including older age and preoperative SHIM were significantly associated with poorer functional recovery. This data is valuable in prognostic evaluation and patient counseling.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".