MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W160574668

The efficacy of chondroitin sulfate 0.2% in treating interstitial cystitis.

2002· article· en· W160574668 on OpenAlexaff
Gustav Steinhoff, B. Ittah, Stephanie Rowan

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health AuthorityIsland Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterstitial cystitisMedicineChondroitin sulfateUrologyChondroitinInternal medicineUrinary systemGlycosaminoglycan
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: An open label study of chondroitin sulfate was undertaken to determine the response of patients with interstitial cystitis and positive potassium test results to this agent. METHOD: Eighteen patients with classic features of interstitial cystitis were enrolled in the study. Patients received 40 mL chondroitin sulfate, 0.2% instilled intravesically once a week for four weeks and then once a month for 12 months. At the same times, Quality of Life Improvement scores, voiding diaries, and pain and voiding indices were reviewed. RESULTS: Thirteen of 18 patients were followed for the entire 13-month study. Twelve of these patients responded to treatment within 3 to 12 weeks, on average. A total of 6/13 (46.2%) showed a good response, 2/13 (15.4%) had a fair response, and 4/13 (30.8%) had a partial response and 1/13 (7.7%) showed no response. CONCLUSION: Intravesical chondroitin sulfate seems to demonstrate some beneficial effects in treatment of interstitial cystitis patients who have positive potassium stimulation test results.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations59
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207