MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2342199245 · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2016.04.004

A randomized clinical trial of how to best position retropubic slings for stress urinary incontinence: Development of a study protocol for the mid-urethral sling tensioning (MUST) trial

2016· article· en· W2342199245 on OpenAlexaff
Erin A. Brennand, Shunaha Kim-Fine

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Clinical Trials Communications · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersBoston Scientific Corporation
KeywordsMedicineUrinary incontinenceUrethraSling (weapon)Randomized controlled trialUrologyStress incontinenceUrinary retentionNeck of urinary bladderSurgeryUrinary bladder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this trial is to compare two techniques for tensioning retropubic midurethral slings: a Mayo scissor between the tape and urethra vs. a Babcock clamp creating a measured loop underneath the urethra. The primary outcome is a composite of abnormal bladder function at 12 months post surgery. Abnormal bladder function is defined as bothersome stress incontinence or worsening over active bladder symptoms, a positive cough stress test, re-treatment of stress urinary incontinence, post-operative urinary retention requiring either catheterization beyond 6 weeks or surgical intervention. Secondary outcomes include the duration of post operative urinary retention, quality of life scores, and physical examination. This article describes the rationale and design of this clinical trial, which will be of interest to those who care for patient with pelvic floor disorders such as stress urinary incontinence.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.004

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 head0.484
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.064 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Clinical Trials CommunicationsSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207