MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132608764 · doi:10.1177/1553350612460125

Intradetrusor Injection of Botulinum Toxin for the Management of Refractory Overactive Bladder Syndrome

2012· review· en· W2132608764 on OpenAlexaff
Tariq F. Al-Shaiji

Bibliographic record

VenueSurgical Innovation · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBotulinum toxinOveractive bladderRefractory (planetary science)Detrusor musclePharmacotherapySafety profileQuality of life (healthcare)Intensive care medicineUrologyAnesthesiaUrinary bladderInternal medicineAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Overactive bladder (OAB) is a common syndrome that has a negative impact on daily activities and quality of life. The first-line treatment to manage this condition includes behavioral modifications, physical treatment, and oral pharmacotherapy with antimuscarinics. Botulinum toxin has emerged as an alternative and second-line treatment option for patients with OAB who are refractory to first-line treatment modalities when injected into the detrusor muscle. Although its application in the management of OAB remains off label, studies have shown its efficacy both subjectively and objectively. It is considered as a minimally invasive and reversible alternative. Adequate dosage of the toxin, number of injection sites, and reinjection rates are yet to be determined. This review attempts to provide an update on the current position of botulinum toxin in managing refractory OAB addressing contemporary data on the mechanism of action, technique, safety, complications, and clinical results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurgical InnovationSame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207