Investigation and management of antenatally detected hydronephrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All ANH should be investigated with a post-natal RUS.2 Level 1 Evidence: Grade A Recommendation The role of prophylactic antibiotics initiated at birth is controversial. Grade D Recommendation The need to further investigate mild postnatal hydronephrosis (SFU 0–II) with a VCUG is controversial, and depends on the physician’s attitude toward diagnosing asymptomatic VUR. Grade D Recommendation The need to reassess mild postnatal hydronephrosis with a second RUS is unclear, but does provide reassurance to the physician and parent if the ANH remains stable or improves. Level 4 Evidence: Grade C Recommendation Persistent moderate or severe hydronephrosis (SFU III–IV) should be investigated with a VCUG, followed by diuretic renography if the hydronephrosis cannot be explained by VUR.1 Level 4 Evidence: Grade C Recommendation A summary flow chart is provided (Fig. 1). To assist in the decision-making of controversial areas, members of the Pediatric Urologists of Canada were surveyed in 2007 to determine most common practice patterns. The results, based on the responses of 15 Canadian members, are included in the flow chart. Fig 1 Summary flow chart of Levels of Evidence and Grade recommendations for evaluating antenatal hydronephrosis. *93% would not order a voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG) if Society of Fetal Urology (SFU) 0; 80% would not order a VCUG for SFU I; 73% would order ... Footnotes This article has been peer reviewed. Competing interests: None declared.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".