Anatomical variants of the puboprostatic ligaments: Are they relevant to outcomes of radical prostatectomy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prostate cancer affects men worldwide and is frequently treated by radical prostatectomy. The puboprostatic ligaments anchor the prostate to the pubis and must be manipulated for successful prostate removal. Previous studies have identified these ligaments but have not characterized variations typically observed. This study aims to classify the variants and investigate possible relationships between ligament type and post‐operative outcomes. Videos of 300 robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies (RARP) were viewed and images of the puboprostatic ligaments were isolated. The ligaments were classified based on morphology into a four‐class system: Fused, V‐shaped, Inverted V‐shape, Parallel. Initial results show that the majority of ligaments are parallel (37%) while fused ligaments are least common (2.7%). V‐shaped ligaments and inverted V‐shaped ligaments were identified in 19.7% and 11% of the population, respectively. This study proposes a puboprostatic ligament classification system that could be adopted universally, allowing better prediction of post‐operative outcomes. Further validation of our proposed classification system and investigation into its clinical significance is ongoing. Grant Funding Source : Internal
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".