Primary and Secondary Nocturnal Enuresis: Similarities in Presentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the differences or similarities in the clinical presentation between patients with primary and secondary nocturnal enuresis. METHODS: A total of 170 patients with nocturnal enuresis were assessed at a busy tertiary care pediatric voiding dysfunction clinic at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. Patients with primary nocturnal enuresis (PNE) were compared with patients with secondary nocturnal enuresis (SNE) for a variety of clinical features, including gender, age when first voiding on their own, age on presentation, infrequent voiding, frequent voiding, urgency, daytime wetting, nocturia, urinary tract infection, constipation, vesicoureteral reflux, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, uroflow results, and ultrasound evidence of a postvoid residual. RESULTS: The only significant difference between the patients with PNE and those with SNE was in the prevalence of constipation. Constipation was significantly associated with PNE (74.59% vs 57.54%; odds ratio: 2.17; 95% confidence interval: 1.07-4.41). When adjusted for a history of constipation, the age at which a child began to void on his or her own became statistically significant. Patients with SNE started to void on their own at 2.13 years (SD: 0.61), an average of 0.22 years earlier than those with PNE, who started to void on their own at 2.35 years. CONCLUSIONS: PNE and SNE likely share a common pathogenesis. Symptoms of daytime voiding dysfunction are common in patients with PNE and SNE. Daytime voiding habits might influence how the central nervous system responds at night to a full or contracting bladder.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".