Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy results in men with indwelling urinary catheters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We sought to evaluate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) findings and biopsy results in men with an indwelling catheter undergoing prostate cancer screening. mpMRI is central to the evaluation of prostate cancer. Little is known about the effect of an indwelling urinary catheter on prostate mpMRI findings and the results of subsequent biopsies. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 5820 mpMRI exams performed from 2017-2023. Forty-eight patients underwent mpMRI with an indwelling urinary catheter. Using propensity score matching, patients were matched 1:1 for age, pre-biopsy prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and prostate volume. Clinical characteristics, mpMRI findings, and targeted biopsy results were compared between the groups. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, clinical characteristics of the study groups did not differ significantly. Prostate Imaging-Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) distribution did not show a significant difference (p=0.51); PI-RADS ≥3 lesions were identified in 20/48 (42%) patients with indwelling catheters and in 18/50 (36%) patients without catheters. Among patients with a PI-RADS score ≥3, clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was identified in 5/20 patients carrying catheters and 6/18 patients without catheters (p=0.152). A higher rate of any cancer was identified in patients without a catheter (67% vs. 35%, p=0.049). PSA >9.79 ng/ml predicted the finding of csPCa in patients carrying urinary catheters with PI-RADS ≥3 lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest no significant difference in mpMRI findings and csPCa rates for patients with and without indwelling urinary catheters. Patients carrying urinary catheters suspected to harbor csPCa based on an elevated PSA level should undergo further evaluation, including mpMRI and biopsies when necessary before benign prostatic hyperplasia treatment.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".