MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1814832917 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.2102

Are we accurately predicting bladder capacity in infants?

2014· article· en· W1814832917 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Daniel Francis Gunn Costa, Luke T. Lavallée, Claude Dubois, Michael Leonard, Luis Guerra

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeCohortUrologyCatheterSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Estimating bladder capacity is an important component in the evaluation of many urological disorders. For estimates to be of clinical value, precise reference ranges are needed. While accepted reference ranges have been established in adults and older children, none have been validated in infants. We endeavour to determine the normal bladder capacity of children less than 1 year of age. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of children aged 0 to 12 months with cutaneous stigmata of spinal dysraphism who were referred to the urology clinic to rule out tethered cord between October 2004 and July 2011. Patients with normal urologic assessment, who did not have surgery during the time they were followed, were included in the study cohort. Urodynamic studies were performed using the Laborie Medical Technologies UDS-600. Bladder filling occurred via a catheter at a rate of 10% of the expected total bladder capacity/minute. Bladder capacity was defined as the volume of filling when the child voided around the catheter. We collected data, including age at urodynamics, bladder capacity, detrusor pressure at capacity, bladder compliance and length of follow-up. RESULT: In total, 46% (84/183) of patients had a normal urologic assessment and met the inclusion criteria. The median age was 9.0 months (interquartile range [IQR] 6.8-11.0). The average bladder capacity was 48.9 mL (standard deviation [SD] 32.8) and the mean detrusor pressure at capacity was 8.5 cmH2O (SD 10.0). Mean compliance was 14.1 mL/cmH2O (SD 13.6). The average length of follow-up was 40.7 months (SD 26.2) and during this interval no patients were found to have urologic or neurologic abnormalities and none underwent tethered cord release. CONCLUSION: Bladder capacity in infants with a median age of 9.0 months was found to be 48.9 mL. This is less than half of the volume predicted by a commonly employed formula. A novel method of estimating bladder capacity in infants is required.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Same topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research→French-language works237,207→