Parameters of successful sacral root neuromodulation of the pelvic floor: a retrospective study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE: Neuromodulation of the pelvic floor (InterStim) is a relatively new technique in the field of urology. We present our observations for effective neuromodulation on our patient population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective case review study, we studied the charts of 67 patients, who underwent InterStim operations between the years 1993 to 2002. All patients had a good response to InterStim. Patients with inefficient or inconclusive responses were not included in the study. All the relevant patient data was recorded from their charts. For each patient, the following was recorded; the amplitude in volts, the pulse width (in microseconds) and rate, the mode (cycling versus continuous), the electrodes and their position, the load impedance, and the change in amplitude over time. RESULTS: Amplitude over time showed an initial plateau, followed by a small increase that gets larger. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term management of InterStim recipients requires increasing amplitude following the implantation of the IntreStim to maintain the same satisfactory levels of urinary control.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".