Quality of life in prostate cancer: active surveillance versus radical prostatectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This purpose of this review is to summarize current literature surrounding quality of life research in men with prostate cancer who choose either active surveillance (AS) or radical prostatectomy (RP), targeting anxiety, urinary and sexual symptoms. Methods: A PUBMED search on anxiety, urinary, and sexual symptoms in active surveillance and prostatectomy in prostate cancer was performed using MESH search terms. Literature in English from 2005 to 2015 was included, and augmented with relevant articles found amongst reference lists. Thirteen original research articles were selected for review. Results: Men in AS vs RP groups do not significantly differ in terms of anxiety, depression or distress. A higher proportion of men have difficulty achieving erections firm enough for intercourse and higher rates of urinary incontinence after RP. No data was found comparing urinary obstructive symptoms in RP and AS, though obstructive symptoms are known to be higher in watchful waiting. Conclusion: Active surveillance is advantageous in having lower rates of erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence, and is not associated with higher rates of anxiety. There are few studies comparing health related quality of life in active surveillance to radical prostatectomy, and more literature is required to fully understand the quality of life outcomes of each treatment choice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".