Long-term outcomes after treatment with Optilume BPH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: BPH Catheter System for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: A total of 80 men with moderate-to-severe LUTS secondary to BPH were enrolled and treated with the Optilume BPH Catheter System. Symptoms were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia-Impact Index (BPH-II). Improvement in urinary flow and relief of obstruction was evaluated by way of peak urinary flow rate (Qmax) and postvoid residual urine volume (PVR). Subjects were prospectively queried for adverse events at each study visit, and relatedness to the study device was evaluated by the investigators, as well as centrally adjudicated by the study principal investigator. RESULTS: Previous reports of symptom improvement in this cohort were maintained through four-year followup, with a significant reduction in IPSS and IPSS quality of life maintained through four years (-12.1, -2.8, respectively). Clinically meaningful improvement in Qmax was maintained in the majority of subjects, with an average improvement from baseline of +5.6 mL/sec. No treatment-related adverse events were reported in the long-term followup period. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term followup through four years for subjects treated with the Optilume BPH Catheter System indicates durable outcomes in symptom improvement and functional improvement in flow rate. These results indicate the unique mechanism of action for Optilume BPH successfully achieves an immediate mechanical effect that is maintained long-term through incorporation of paclitaxel to maintain patency.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".