Bibliographic record
Abstract
I n this issue of CUAJ, Costa and colleagues have developed a formula that is derived from urodynamic studies in children that were suspected to have tethered cords. 1 The authors concluded that this measure of urodynamic maximal bladder capacity is a true bladder volume.Unfortunately this assertion is flawed since they did not perform natural fill urodynamics.We understand that the stresses of the procedure can have a direct effect on maximal bladder volume and sensation to void.The work that has been done by Derek Griffiths and his group and Clare Fowler and her group point to the frontal lobes playing a critical role in sensation of bladder filling. 2 These very areas of the brain are very susceptible to the effects of stress.Exogenous stressors, a catheter in the bladder and unnatural filling of the bladder can render the bladder sensory apparatus to not function the way it should in this unnatural situation thereby altering the perception of filling.It does not make a difference that these are not toilet-trained children, the threshold to trigger a bladder contraction is lowered by these exogenous factors.This would explain why the results obtained in this study were all lower than in all other studies.The authors should focus on the fact that they have defined a very important and useful parameter that is lacking in the literature -what is the normal urodynamic bladder capacity?The other studies do not address this problem and clearly we need a good way to estimate bladder capacity in these children for clinical trials and other studies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".