Pudendal somatosensory evoked potentials – A standardized assessment for males and females
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Objective To evaluate configuration- and sex-related differences in pudendal somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) waveform characteristics, tolerability, response stability, and test–retest reliability in healthy adults. Methods Pudendal SEPs were recorded from forty-two able-bodied adults (20 females, 22 males) across multiple electrode configurations that varied in anode-cathode placement for both sexes, and in laterality (unilateral and bilateral) for females only. Tibial SEPs were also recorded as a reference control. Peak-to-peak amplitudes were compared across configurations and between sexes and nerves using linear mixed-effects models. SEP latency was summarized descriptively. Tolerability (self-reported 1–10 Likert scale) was analyzed with cumulative link mixed models. Peak-to-peak amplitude stability was computed from exponential fits of cumulative averages and compared across configurations and nerves. Test–retest reliability for SEP latency and peak-to-peak amplitudes was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients and Bland–Altman analyses. Results Electrode configuration had no effect on peak-to-peak amplitude in females or males, and no sex-based amplitude differences were observed. Tolerability varied significantly by configuration, where the configuration with the clitoral cathode and bilateral anodes was rated least tolerable in females, and the configuration with the anode on the glans and the cathode on the proximal shaft was least tolerable in males. Tibial nerve stimulation was consistently rated as more tolerable than pudendal, with a larger difference observed in females. On average, pudendal SEP amplitudes stabilized at 282 stimuli in females and 324 in males, with no differences across configurations nor compared to tibial SEPs. Test–retest analyses showed no systematic bias and revealed moderate-to-good reliability, with latency measures demonstrating greater reproducibility than peak-to-peak amplitudes. Conclusions Pudendal SEP amplitudes and response stability were robust to electrode configuration, but tolerability differed across configurations, highlighting the need to consider electrode placement when designing protocols to improve participant comfort. Test–retest analyses demonstrated moderate-to-good reproducibility, particularly for latency measures, supporting the reliability of pudendal SEPs for longitudinal or repeated assessments. Significance These findings establish the feasibility and reliability of pudendal SEPs in healthy adults and provide guidance for optimizing stimulation locations in future research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».