MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1620830272 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.933

Vaginal entrapment of bathwater: a source of extra-urethral incontinence

2013· article· en· W1620830272 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Karen Psooy, Jason Archambault

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBathingUrinary incontinenceMedicineSex organToiletingShowerGynecologySurgeryPhysical therapyActivities of daily livingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report presents 2 cases of females (a prepubertal and a pre-menopausal female) with dribbling "incontinence" caused by vaginal entrapment of bathwater. In the first case, an 8-year-old girl presented with a history of bothersome wetness of her underwear, noted mainly in the morning. History revealed that she bathed almost nightly. She was instructed to shower or bath only, each for one week. The wetting occurred only after bathing. In the second case, a 39-year-old female, G2P2 with normal genitalia noted occasional, yet significant, dribbling into her underwear only after baths. She concluded this to be bathwater accumulating in her vagina, which she evacuates digitally. The differential diagnosis of dribbling incontinence in females of any age should include the extra-urethral cause of entrapped fluids of immersion. Although this condition may be rare, it is simple to rule out on history based on its temporal association with fluid immersion. Once diagnosed, the management is behavioural.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Same topicPelvic floor disorders treatments→French-language works237,207→