Does routine ultrasound change management in the follow-up of patients with vesicoureteral reflux?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Children with vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) usually need a renal ultrasound (RUS). There is little data on the role of follow-up RUS in VUR. We evaluated the impact of follow-up RUS on the change in clinical management in patients with VUR. METHODS: We prospectively analyzed children with a previous diagnosis of VUR seen in the outpatient clinic with a routine follow-up RUS within 4 months. Variables collected included: demographic data, VUR history, dysfunctional voiding symptoms and concurrent ultrasound findings. Change in management was defined as addition of new medication, nurse counselling, surgery or further investigations. RESULTS: The study included 114 consecutive patients. The mean patient age was 4.5 years old, mean age of VUR diagnosis was 1.7 years, with average follow-up of 2.8 years. A change in management with stable RUS occurred in 14 patients, in which the change included ordering a DMSA in 9, nurse counselling for dysfunctional voiding in 3, and booking surgery in 2 patients. Change on RUS was seen in 4 patients. Multivariable analysis showed that history of urinary tract infection (UTI) since the last follow-up visit was more significant than RUS findings. CONCLUSIONS: The RUS findings in most patients followed for VUR remain stable or with minimal changes. The variable showing a significant effect on change in management in our study was history of UTI since the last follow-up visit rather than RUS findings. The value of follow-up RUS for children with VUR may need to be revisited.
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 | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".