Establishing a Standard Protocol for the Voiding Cystourethrography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG) is a frequently performed test to diagnose a variety of urologic conditions, such as vesicoureteral reflux. The test results determine whether continued observation or an interventional procedure is indicated. VCUGs are ordered by many specialists and primary care providers, including pediatricians, family practitioners, nephrologists, hospitalists, emergency department physicians, and urologists. Current protocols for performing and interpreting a VCUG are based on the International Reflux Study in 1985. However, more recent information provided by many national and international institutions suggests a need to refine those recommendations. The lead author of the 1985 study, R.L. Lebowitz, agreed to and participated in the current protocol. In addition, a recent survey directed to the chairpersons of pediatric radiology of 65 children's hospitals throughout the United States and Canada showed that VCUG protocols vary substantially. Recent guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommend a VCUG for children between 2 and 24 months of age with urinary tract infections but did not specify how this test should be performed. To improve patient safety and to standardize the data obtained when a VCUG is performed, the AAP Section on Radiology and the AAP Section on Urology initiated the current VCUG protocol to create a consensus on how to perform this test.
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 | 0.038 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.015 |
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".