MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150670322 · doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(05)67239-4

THE DYSFUNCTIONAL VOIDING SCORING SYSTEM: QUANTITATIVE STANDARDIZATION OF DYSFUNCTIONAL VOIDING SYMPTOMS IN CHILDREN

2000· article· en· W2150670322 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDysfunctional familyMedicineStandardizationClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Academic research on pediatric nonneurogenic voiding dysfunction has long been hampered by the lack of a standardized reporting system for voiding symptoms. We evaluated the performance of a newly devised, objective instrument to quantify or grade the severity of abnormal voiding behaviors of children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: There were 10 voiding dysfunction parameters that were assigned scores of 0 to 3 according to prevalence, and possible total scores ranged from 0 to 30. The Dysfunctional Voiding Symptom Score was completed by 2 groups of patients. Group 1 consisted of patients 3 to 10 years old presenting to the pediatric urology clinic with a history of diurnal urinary incontinence, urinary tract infections or abnormal voiding habits. Group 2 consisted of an age matched cohort with no history of urological complaints presenting to hospital clinics outside of urology. Patients diagnosed with organic or anatomical disease, such as posterior urethral valves or meningomyelocele, were excluded from our analysis. RESULTS: Group 1 consisted of 104 patients (female-to-male ratio 4:1) with a median symptom score of 14 and group 2 consisted of 54 patients (female-to-male ratio 1.3:1) with a median score of 4. The dysfunctional voiding odds ratio was 2.93 for females compared to that of males. Using receiver operating characteristics the optimum cutoff score was 6.026 (sensitivity 92.77% and specificity 87.09%) for females and 9.02 (sensitivity of 80.95% and specificity of 91. 30%) for males. In addition, we found certain questions to be more reflective than others of dysfunctional voiding symptoms in our population. CONCLUSIONS: The Dysfunctional Voiding Symptom Score appears to provide accurate and objective, that is, numerical, grading of voiding behaviors of children. Comparative research studies of dysfunctional voiding diagnosis and response to therapy as well as objective measurements of treatment efficacy and outcomes analysis should be aided greatly by this system.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.273 · 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