Followup of Patients With Interstitial Cystitis Responsive to Treatment With Intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guerin or Placebo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the longer term response in patients with interstitial cystitis who initially responded to intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guerin or placebo in a randomized clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with interstitial cystitis who responded positively to treatment with bacillus Calmette-Guerin or placebo after 34 weeks of followup in a double-blind clinical trial were followed for an additional 34 weeks in an observational study to assess response durability. Outcomes at 68 weeks included a patient reported global response assessment, 24-hour voiding diary, and pain, urgency and validated interstitial cystitis symptom indexes. RESULTS: Of responders to bacillus Calmette-Guerin or placebo in the clinical trial 38 continued extended followup in the observational study. A total of 12 (75%) responders who received placebo and 19 (86%) who received bacillus Calmette-Guerin considered themselves to remain moderately or markedly improved at week 68. Improved symptom outcomes were also generally maintained during followup in the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients who respond to therapy with intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guerin or placebo maintain improved symptoms for up to 68 weeks after the initiation of therapy. However, initial response rates are low and placebo responders demonstrated essentially the same durability of response as bacillus Calmette-Guerin responders. These results argue against the routine use of bacillus Calmette-Guerin in this patient group.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".