The additional value of ambulatory urodynamic measurements compared with conventional urodynamic measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To study the additional diagnostic value of ambulatory urodynamic measurements/monitoring (AUM) in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the urodynamic data, collected at the urology department of our University Hospital between 2002 and 2007. During this period, 2393 urodynamic investigations were conducted. In 108 patients both conventional urodynamic measurements (CUM) and AUM were conducted. RESULTS: In 25 patients an AUM was conducted for bladder evacuation problems due to absent bladder contractility, seen on CUM. In 21 cases, AUM showed the presence of contractility of the bladder under normal conditions at home. Their symptoms were due to other factors such as a concomitant non-relaxation of the urinary sphincter or pelvic floor, psychological reasons or obstruction, for all of which treatment could be initiated. In 32 cases, the indication for AUM was an inconclusive CUM. Of these patients 16 had clear overactive contractions on AUM. CONCLUSION: AUM has a more important place in the second-line diagnostic evaluation of patients with LUTS than generally considered. In half of the cases (16 of 32) in which CUM could not provide a diagnosis, AUM helped us to diagnose overactive bladder. Moreover, in the absence of AUM, many patients would have been misdiagnosed with an acontractile bladder based on their CUM results, which would most probably have resulted in life-time clean intermittent self-catheterization.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".