MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155978094

Diurnal enuresis in childhood.

2000· article· en· W2155978094 on OpenAlexaff
Anne‐Claude Bernard‐Bonnin

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnuresisMedicineUrinalysisUrinary systemMEDLINEUrinary incontinenceUrodynamic testingPediatricsSurgeryInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review the clinical classification of childhood diurnal enuresis, to describe the evaluation process, and to discuss principles of management. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: An extensive literature review was performed with a MEDLINE search. Articles were selected according to date of publication, clinical relevance, and availability. Recent articles, cohort studies of at least 50 patients, and randomized clinical trials were preferred. Recent editions of classic textbooks were consulted. Evaluation and management activities discussed in this article are supported by original and relevant literature. MAIN MESSAGE: Most causes of childhood diurnal enuresis can be determined by a thorough history coupled with a complete physical examination and urinalysis and culture. Supplementary investigations include ultrasonography of the kidneys and bladder to screen for neurogenic bladder and urethral obstruction. When obstruction, ectopic ureter, or bladder dysfunction is suspected, voiding cystourethrography and urodynamic studies are needed. Evaluation of neurogenic bladder includes magnetic resonance imaging of the spine. Treatment is aimed at correcting poor toilet habits, preventing or treating urinary tract infections, and using appropriate medication. CONCLUSIONS: In most instances, diurnal enuresis in childhood is a benign condition with an easily identifiable cause and an excellent prognosis with time and appropriate treatment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207