Hydrophilic-coated catheter appreciation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the paper was to compare the satisfaction of hydrophilic-coated catheters (HC) (SpeediCath, Coloplast Canada, Mississauga, ON) versus uncoated catheters in a pediatric neurogenic bladder population, in order to identify a target group for HC. The main hypothesis was that our patients, with regard to their limitations, might have difficulties using the HC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comparative prospective study was initiated in one pediatric rehabilitation centre. Out of the 39 patients who tried the HC during a routine clinic visit, 31 patients/parents accepted to participate in a 1-week trial and to answer a satisfaction questionnaire. Their medical records were reviewed for age, neurological disease, intellectual deficit, impaired dexterity and method of catheterization (Mitrofanoff/urethra). RESULTS: Thirty of the 31 patients answered the satisfaction questionnaire. The median age for the 30 patients was 13.5 years (range 6-20 years). Of these patients, 19 were females (63%), 26 performed self-catheterization (87%), and 6 had Mitrofanoff (20%). Ten children (33%) would be ready to proceed with HC and all 10 children would receive catheterization by the urethra. Of these, 9 were females (90%), 8 used compact-HC (80%) and all were self-sufficient. Patients using compact-HC would continue with this catheter. In the patient comments, males catheterizing per-urethra and patients using a continent stoma requiring long catheters had problems with the excess of lubricant. CONCLUSION: Most children preferred their usual uncoated catheter and would not change for HC. Female patients catheterizing per-urethra with a compact-HC seem to benefit most from this catheter.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".