Male Chronic Pelvic Pain: AUA Guideline: Part I Evaluation and Management Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This Guideline covers the evaluation and treatment of men who present to a clinician with a complaint of chronic pelvic pain. This is Part I of a three-part series focusing on the evaluation of such patients. The presentation of these men is widely variable. In addition to pelvic pain, they may also have pain in many body areas outside of the pelvis. The wide variety of clinical presentations and multidisciplinary diagnostic and treatment considerations makes management challenging. For discussion of treatment of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) and treatment of chronic scrotal content pain (CSCP), refer to Parts II and II of this series. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review that informs the Guideline statements was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to June 6, 2023), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through May 2023), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through May 2023). An updated search was conducted in June 2024. RESULTS: The Chronic Pelvic Pain Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based statements to provide guidance for the diagnosis and evaluation of male patients who experience chronic pelvic pain. CONCLUSIONS: While the etiology of chronic pelvic pain is unknown, clinicians have a much better understanding of the pathophysiology from the last 25 years of research. Further progress in diagnosis and evaluation of men with suspected CP/CPPS and CSCP will require better understanding of what is causing persistence of the pain in addition to investigation of associated conditions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
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".