Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the most current literature regarding the management of neurogenic bladder in children. RECENT FINDINGS: Several recent papers have addressed the investigation and management of children with neurogenic bladder. Bladder wall thickness as measured by ultrasound may identify the children with urodynamic risk factors for upper urinary tract deterioration. Strategies such as maximal anticholinergic therapy, total endoscopic management, conservative management throughout puberty, and isolated bladder neck procedures to avoid bladder augmentation show promise. However, at present, there is inadequate long-term follow-up to recommend widespread application of all of these approaches. As children with neurogenic bladder enjoy longer life spans, issues including risks of malignancy related to augmentation and transition to adult-centered care will continue to gain significance. SUMMARY: Pediatric urologists continue to face many challenges in the management of children with neurogenic bladder. This includes identifying predictors of upper urinary tract deterioration, finding efficacious strategies to avoid bladder augmentation, and long-term care. The most recent literature attempts to address these issues. Further prospective studies with adequate follow-up will benefit our understanding of this disease process and help to choose the best strategies to achieve continence and preserve renal function in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".