A comparative analysis of pediatric uroflowmetry curves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study was conducted to try to objectify assessment of pediatric uroflowmetry curves. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine professionals in pediatric incontinence care judged 480 pediatric uroflows. On a 1-5 scale, where 1 = anomalous and 5 = normal, uroflows were assessed on four items: staccato, interrupted, flow time and obstruction. Eighty uroflows were re-evaluated for intra-observer agreement. After staccato and interrupted flow had been defined more sharply, another 100 uroflows were analyzed. Cohen's Kappa test for nominally classified data was applied to assess agreement. Kappa value of <0.20 denoted poor agreement, 0.21-0.40 fair, 0.41-0.60 moderate, 0.61-0.80 substantial and 0.81-1.0 perfect or almost perfect agreement. A second analysis was done using a 3 point scale, anomalous, intermediate and normal. RESULTS: For interobserver agreement, Kappas were 0.45 for staccato flow, 0.67 for interrupted, 0.59 for flow time, and 0.66 for obstruction. For intra-observer agreement, Kappas were 0.47 for staccato, 0.65 for interrupted, 0.55 for flow time, and 0.65 for obstruction. On a three-point scale, anomalous, intermediate, and normal, interobserver agreement was equal to 0.80 or above. In the second 100 uroflows, the interobserver agreement Kappas were 0.44 for staccato, 0.95 for interrupted, 0.71 for flow time and 0.73 for obstruction. CONCLUSION: Moderate to substantial agreement on uroflowmetry curves can be reached, except for staccato. Agreement increases if staccato and interrupted flows are defined more sharply. Staccato is defined as three or more peaks and troughs of more than the square root of maximal flow without touching 0, whereas interrupted flow needs at least one 0 passage. In a normal, uninterrupted uroflow, flow time is under 15 sec.
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) | 0.000 | 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".