MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Biopsychosocial Therapy Model for Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome

2008· book-chapter· en· W87000400 on OpenAlexaff
Dean A. Tripp

Bibliographic record

VenueHumana Press eBooks · 2008
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiopsychosocial modelProstatitisChronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndromeChronic painMedicinePelvic painChronic bacterial prostatitisPhysical therapyQuality of life (healthcare)Cognitive behavioral therapyPsychotherapistCognitionPsychologyInternal medicinePsychiatrySurgeryProstateNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) has long been considered a frustrating and prevalent condition by patients and treating physicians alike. Pain is noted as the cardinal symptom in CP/CPPS and is strongly associated with a host of intra and interpersonal difficulties reported by patients in domains such as pain, disability, relations, and overall quality of life. With no tenable cure insight, symptom management for patient adjustment is strongly recommended in CP/CPPS. Extending a discussion of the biomedical treatment model into the biopsychosocial model, CP/CPPS should be qualified as a chronic pain condition recognizing the negative additive impact of psychological and environmental factors in patient outcomes. Providing an empirically based reconceptualization of CP/CPPS, a review of potential treatment targets for men suffering from CP/CPPS is suggested and a novel cognitive-behavioral symptom management program is outlined.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumana Press eBooksSame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207