A prospective, double‐blind, randomized cross‐over study evaluating changes in urinary pH for relieving the symptoms of interstitial cystitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence for the clinical efficacy of changes in urinary pH on the pain associated with interstitial cystitis (IC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized, double-blind cross-over study was conducted with 26 women with IC between 2000 and 2002, consisting of cross-over instillations of urine at physiological pH (5.0), and neutral buffered pH (NaH(2)PO(4) buffered to pH 7.5). The outcome measured was the subjective symptom of pain assessed using a visual analogue scale at baseline, after the initial instillation of solution, at washout, and after the crossover instillation. Data were analysed using repeated-measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the mean (sd) change from baseline pain scores after instilling neutral buffered solution, at 0.50 (2.78), and acidic solution, at 0.33 (3.43) (P = 0.85). Secondary outcomes were analysed, including baseline variability and treatment-order effects; neither were significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference in subjective pain scores on instilling urine at physiological pH or sodium-phosphate buffered saline in these patients with IC. Further work is required to define the role, if any, of urinary pH in the pathophysiology and treatment of IC.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".