Intravesical formalin for hemorrhagic cystitis: A contemporary cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hemorrhagic cystitis presents a difficult clinical challenge, yet data regarding treatment options is sparse. Here, we sought to evaluate outcomes of a contemporary cohort of patients treated with intravesical formalin for hemorrhagic cystitis. METHODS: We identified a retrospective cohort of eight patients managed with formalin for hemorrhagic cystitis from 2000-2014. All patients failed prior measures, including bladder irrigation, clot evacuation, and other intravesical agents. Treatment success was defined as hematuria resolution during the given hospitalization without use of additional invasive therapies. We also evaluated treatment complications and additional treatments following hospital dismissal. RESULTS: Etiology of cystitis was radiation for malignancy in all cases. The formalin concentration ranged from 1-4%, with escalation used in treatment failures. Five patients (62.5%) received a single dose of 1% formalin, two patients received two doses, and one patient received three doses. Notably, intraoperative cystography identified vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) in 50.0% of patients. Six patients (75.0%) achieved treatment success, with a median time to resolution of four days (range 1-17 days). Of those refractory to formalin, one was managed with indwelling nephrostomy tubes and one underwent cystectomy. Median followup was eight months. Of the responders, two eventually required cystectomy, one for recurrent hematuria and one for recalcitrant bladder neck contracture and bladder dysfunction. The remaining four patients (50%) required no additional therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Formalin remains an important tool for treating refractory hemorrhagic cystitis, with roughly 75.0% of patients requiring no additional therapy prior to hospital discharge. Notably, there is a risk of bladder dysfunction following formalin.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".