International Variations in Surgical Quality of Care in Men With Prostate Cancer: Results From the TrueNTH Global Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE Functional problems such as incontinence and sexual dysfunction after radical prostatectomy (RP) are important outcomes to evaluate surgical quality in prostate cancer (PC) care. Differences in survival after RP between countries are known, but differences in functional outcomes after RP between providers from different countries are not well described. METHODS Data from a multinational database of patients with PC (nonmetastatic, treated by RP) who answered the EPIC-26 questionnaire at baseline (before RP, T0) and 1 year after RP (T1) were used, linking survey data to clinical information. Casemix-adjusted incontinence and sexual function scores (T1) were calculated for each country and provider on the basis of regression models and then compared using minimally important differences (MIDs). RESULTS A total of 21,922 patients treated by 151 providers from 10 countries were included. For the EPIC-26 incontinence domain, the median adjusted T1 score of countries was 76, with one country performing more than one MID (for incontinence: 6) worse than the median. Eighteen percent of the variance ( R2) of incontinence scores was explained by the country of the providers. The median adjusted T1 score of sexual function was 33 with no country performing perceivably worse than the median (more than one MID worse), and 34% ( R2) of the variance of the providers' scores could be explained by country. CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this is the first comparison of functional outcomes 1 year after surgical treatment of patients with PC between different countries. Country is a relevant predictor for providers' incontinence and sexual function scores. Although the results are limited because of small samples from some countries, they should be used to enhance cross-country initiatives on quality improvement in PC care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".