Does the Potassium Stimulation Test Predict Cystometric, Cystoscopic Outcome in Interstitial Cystitis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We establish the relationship among symptom duration, cystometric and cystoscopic findings and potassium stimulation test in patients with interstitial cystitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of 189 patients treated at an ambulatory clinic between 1992 and 1998. Urodynamic parameters, potassium stimulation test results and subjective response to treatment were evaluated. Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Of the 189 patients diagnosed with interstitial cystitis 173 (92%) were female and 16 (8%) were male. The potassium stimulation test was positive in 105 (83%) patients, negative in 16 (13%) and equivocal in 6 (4%). A cystometrogram and potassium stimulation test were done in 118 patients. Bladder capacity averaged 259 ml. in patients with tests potassium positive and negative, while average bladder volume at first sensation to void was 85 ml. and 148 ml. in those with negative and positive tests, respectively. Among the 102 patients with a positive potassium stimulation test 52 had normal cystoscopic findings. CONCLUSIONS: The potassium stimulation test is not correlated with either bladder capacity or cystoscopic findings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".