Interstitial cystitis: an enigmatic disorder of unclear aetiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1990, the National Institute for Diabetes and Diseases of the Kidney (NIDDK) recommended the use of criteria for IC diagnosis [1] (Table 1). These criteria were soon recognized to be useful for scientific purposes but to be strict for clinical practice [2]. The International Continence Society (ICS) proposed the term ‘Painful Bladder Syndrome’ [3] (PBS). It was defined as the syndrome consisting of ‘suprapubic pain related to bladder filling accompanied by other symptoms, such as increased daytime and nighttime frequency in the absence of proven infection or other obvious pathology’ [3]. Using a similar definition, the European Society for the Study of Interstitial Cystitis (ESSIC) proposed the term ‘Bladder Pain Syndrome’ (BPS) [4]. Due to multiple definitions and diagnostic criteria used, the prevalence of IC varies widely throughout the world. This variation may also reflect racial/ethnic differences. Older series report the prevalence of IC much lower than recent studies (18.1/100 000 women and 10.6/100 000 men and women [5], 52–197/100 000 women [6,7] and 40– 70/100 000 men [6,7], respectively). Using self-report of a previous IC diagnosis, the prevalence was much higher (865/100 000 women and 501/100 000 men and women)
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".