Quality-of-life outcomes following Aquablation in men with poor initial quality of life: pooled analysis of five international studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the relationship between specific baseline clinical factors and QoL outcomes at three months in men presenting with poor initial QoL. This multinational study conducted a retrospective analysis of international data from men with poor baseline quality of life (QoL) scores (4, 5, or 6) who underwent Aquablation for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The study involved 310 men with QoL <=2 and 104 men with QoL >2 at 3 -months post-treatment. Baseline clinical characteristics were collected, including the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) for storage and voiding, post-void residual (PVR), MSHQ-EjD and IIEF-5 for sexually active men. The study involved 310 men with QoL ≤ 2 and 104 men with QoL > 2. The mean age for men with QoL ≤ 2 was 66.8 years (SD ± 7.5) and 68.3 years (SD ± 8.0) for those with QoL > 2. The mean prostate volume was 72.1 mL (SD ± 31.2) for the QoL ≤ 2 group and 68.4 mL (SD ± 28.0) for the QoL > 2 group. In the univariable logistic regression analysis, significant improvement in quality of life at 3 months was observed among patients with poor baseline QoL who had a high post-void residual volume (PVR >100 mL; OR = 1.737, p = 0.018) and higher baseline erectile function scores (IIEF-5; OR = 1.075, p <0.001). In summary, this study adds to the growing evidence supporting Aquablation as an effective intervention for alleviating prostate symptoms and improving QoL in affected men with poor QoL.
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 | 0.020 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".