Decreased Urethral Volume Is Comparable to Funneling as a Predictor of Intrinsic Sphincter Deficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to determine the association between x-ray funneling and ultrasound urethral sphincter complex measurements and to compare the reliability of funneling versus urethral volume measurement in the detection of intrinsic sphincter deficiency (ISD). METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis, which included 54 stress incontinent women dichotomized into those with (1) ISD and (2) no ISD. The presence of bladder neck funneling was diagnosed by fluoroscopic images obtained at the time of video-urodynamics testing. Measurements of the urethral sphincter complex were obtained from ultrasound volumes. Reliability measures were obtained for both funneling and urethral volume measurements. RESULTS: Rhabdomyosphincter length and area were found to be smaller in patients with funneling compared with those with no funneling (P = 0.0161, P = 0.0359). The urethral volume was significantly smaller in the ISD versus no-ISD group (P = 0.0002). For those who had funneling, the ISD group had smaller urethral volume compared with the no-ISD group (P = 0.0019). For those who did not have funneling, the ISD group still had a smaller urethral volume compared with the no-ISD group (P = 0.0054). An ultrasound urethral volume of less than 3.5 cm had a sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 64% for the presence of ISD, whereas x-ray funneling had a sensitivity of 76% and a specificity of 73%. CONCLUSIONS: Smaller rhabdomyosphincter length and area on ultrasound are associated with x-ray funneling. Ultrasound urethral volume of 3.5 cm as a cutoff provides the same reliability as x-ray funneling for the diagnosis of ISD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".