The effect of incontinence after radical prostatectomy on quality of life and frailty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study aimed to determine the effect of incontinence after radical prostatectomy on quality of life and level of frailty. It is a descriptive study conducted with 107 radical prostatectomy patients who were hospitalized in the Urology Clinic of a training and research hospital in Istanbul between March–August 2021, and met the inclusion criteria. Data were collected using the Patient Identification Form, the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire – Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (ICIQ‐MLUTS), and the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS). The mean fragility score of the patients was 7.82 ± 2.63, and 27% of them were ‘Mildly Frail’ and 25.2% were ‘Moderately Frail’. The ICIQ‐MLUTS voiding complaints sub‐dimension score of the patients was 8.62 ± 3.48, and the voiding complaints bother score was found to be 24.8 ± 9.85. The ICIQ‐MLUTS storage complaints sub‐dimension score was 12.13 ± 3.05, and the storage complaints bother score was 36.25 ± 9.02. The ICIQ‐MLUTS daytime urinary frequency subdimension score was 2.35 ± 0.93, and the daytime urinary frequency bother score was 6.94 ± 2.17. The ICIQ‐MLUTS nocturnal urinary frequency sub‐dimension score was 2.79 ± 0.88, and the nocturnal urinary frequency discomfort level score was found to be 7.37 ± 2.19. In this study, it was observed that patients' complaints regarding lower urinary tract symptoms and their quality of life were at a moderate level and the frailty levels increased with the increasing severity of incontinence symptoms after radical prostatectomy.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".