Association of symptoms with urodynamic findings in men with overactive bladder syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Study Type--Therapy (review) Level of Evidence 4. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? It is known that overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms correlate weakly with urodynamic findings, especially in female patients. The study shows that OAB symptoms also correlate weakly with urodynamic findings in male patients. More than third of male patients with OAB symptoms had evidence of BOO. The study finds that a pressure flow study is of benefit in the evaluation of this group of patients. OBJECTIVE: • To assess the correlation between overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms with urodynamic (UD) findings in men. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • We conducted a retrospective study of all UD studies involving men with OAB symptoms. • All UD studies were carried out at a single centre from 1994 to 2009 and were reported by one urology specialist. RESULTS: • There were 668 UD reports included in the final analysis. All patients had symptoms of urgency with or without urgency incontinence (UI). • There was a weak correlation between OAB symptoms and UD findings. • All storage symptoms, except frequency, correlated with a finding of detrusor overactivity (DO). • Severity of urgency correlated inversely with a finding of bladder outlet obstruction (BOO). • Both nocturia and frequency correlated inversely with maximum cystometric capacity. • More than 75% of patients had concomitant voiding symptoms. Severity of voiding symptoms (slow stream and incomplete emptying) correlated inversely with documentation of DO. Voiding symptoms were predictors of BOO, while severe urgency was a negative predictor for BOO. CONCLUSIONS: • There were weak correlations between OAB symptoms and UD findings. Most men with OAB symptoms had concomitant voiding symptoms and more than a third (43%) of these had evidence of BOO. • A pressure flow study is of benefit in the evaluation of patients with OAB symptoms.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".