Leak point pressure at different bladder volumes in stress urinary incontinence in women: Comparison between Valsalva and coughinduced leak point pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We compared Valsalva leak point pressure (VLPP) in urodynamically proven stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women at different bladder volumes; examined the relationship between VLPP and cough-induced leak point pressure (CLPP) compared by incontinence severity; and evaluated the influence of bladder volume on each leak point pressure (LPP). METHODS: Women with urodynamically proven SUI who underwent serial VLPP and CLPP measurement at bladder volumes of 150, 200, 250, and 300 mL were included in this study (n=228). LPP determination was repeated two times in each subject after finishing one series of LPP measurement. LPP at different bladder volumes was compared by subjective symptom severity of Stamey grade. RESULTS: Patients mean age was 51.3±7.6 years (range: 40-65 years). Stamey grade I, II, and III was assigned to 68 (29.8%), 102 (44.7%), and 58 (25.4%) patients, respectively. Mean CLPP was higher than VLPP (p=0.002) at every bladder volume. VLPP and CLPP were significantly decreased by the increase of bladder volume (p=0.001). The mean first positive LPPs were significantly lower at higher Stamey grade (p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: LPP is more frequently induced by cough than by the Valsalva maneuver. VLPP and CLPP decreased significantly with bladder filling and those with severe symptoms of SUI are more likely to have low LPP.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".