MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391733207 · doi:10.1002/bco2.329

The effectiveness of adjustable trans‐obturator male system (ATOMS) in radiated patients is reduced: A propensity score‐matched analysis

2024· article· en· W4391733207 on OpenAlexaff
J.C. Angulo, Alessandro Giammò, Fabian Queißert, Sandra Schönburg, Carmen González Enguita, Andreas Gonsior, A. Romero, Francisco E. Martins, Tiago Antunes‐Lopes, Raquel González, J.J. Szczesniewski, Carlos Téllez, Francisco Cruz, Keith Rourke

Bibliographic record

VenueBJUI Compass · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital Edmonton
FundersTexas A and M University-Kingsville
KeywordsPropensity score matchingMedicineSiliconeClinical endpointConcomitantSurgeryRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of the adjustable trans‐obturator male system (ATOMS®) to treat post‐prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) in radiated patients compared with non‐radiated patients, using propensity score‐matching analysis to enhance the validity of the comparison. Patients and methods Consecutive men with PPI treated with silicone‐covered scrotal port ATOMS (A.M.I., Feldkirch, Austria) in nine different institutions between 2016 and 2022 were included. Preoperative assessment evaluated 24‐h pad usage, urethroscopy and urodynamics, if indicated. Propensity score‐matching analysis was based on age, length of follow‐up, previous PPI treatment, previous bladder neck stricture, androgen deprivation and pad usage. The primary endpoint was dry rate, defined as no pads post‐operatively with a security pad allowed. The secondary endpoints were complications, device removal and self‐perceived satisfaction with the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI‐I) scale. Results Of the 710 included patients, 342 were matched, and the study groups were balanced for the baseline matched variables. The mean baseline 24‐h pad was 4.8 in both groups (p = 0.48). The mean follow‐up was 27.5 ± 18.6 months, which was also equivalent between groups (p = 0.36). The primary outcome was achieved in 73 (42.7%) radiated patients and in 115 (67.3%) non‐radiated patients (p < 0.0001). The mean pad count at the last follow‐up was 1.5 and 0.8, respectively (p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in complications (p = 0.94), but surgical revision and device explant rates were higher (p = 0.03 and p = 0.01, respectively), and the proportion of patients highly satisfied (PGI‐I = 1) was lower in the radiated group (p = 0.01). At sensitivity analysis, the study was found to be reasonably robust to hidden bias. Conclusion ATOMS implantation significantly outperformed in patients without adjuvant radiation over radiated patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJUI CompassSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207