Evaluation of the efficacy of stem cell therapy in erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy: a comprehensive systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Around 68% patients undergoing radical prostatectomy face postoperative erectile dysfunction. This systematic review aims to investigate the studies pertaining to efficacy of stem cell therapy in alleviating erectile dysfunction (ED) of radical prostatectomy (RP) patients. Furthermore, it provides evidence-based potential benefits of stem cell therapy in addressing erectile dysfunction of those patients. A systematic literature search from PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct and clinicaltrial.gov databases was conducted for the clinical trials evaluating efficacy and safety of stem cell therapy in post-prostatectomy erectile dysfunction. The inclusion criteria pertained to the studies reporting pre- and post-outcome erectile function and safety results. Cochrane Robins I was employed for the quality and bias risk. Four studies were finally included. The studies were of high quality as revealed from the quality assessment results. They were the non-randomized human-based clinical trials. Patients follow-up ranged from 3 to 12 months. Intercourse satisfaction scores were improved after 6 and 12 months of stem cell therapy. No serious adversities were reported during and after the study period. It was thus a safe therapeutic option as per these results. This study evaluated the role of stem cell therapy in post-RP ED. The included studies depicted its efficacy and safety. The information on stem cell therapy for ED was limited, however it could provide foundation for future research. Large-scale human studies with robust research designs would bring more objectivity and conclusive evidence.
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 | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".