Comparing a novel hand held device (Peritron+) to standard urodynamics in measuring intravesical pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims Peritron+ is a new handheld device, which can be attached to a urethral catheter to measure intravesical pressures (Pves). The goal of this study was to assess if Pves recorded by standard urodynamics (UDs) are comparable to those recorded by the Peritron+. Methods Patients with voiding dysfunction and an indication for UD underwent measurement of Pves with nonvideo UD and Peritron+. Pves were recorded at volumes of 50, 100, and 200 mL for the supine and sitting positions. A failure of the Peritron+ was considered to be a discrepancy of Pves values >3 cmH2O between Peritron+ and UD recordings. Two‐way ANOVA was used to assess for statistical significance. P‐values < 0.05 were considered significant. Results Ten female patients, mean age 51 years old, were enrolled in the study. The difference in Pves measurements between Peritron+ and UD were ≤3 cmH2O at all bladder volumes measured in a supine and sitting positions. There were no adverse events and there were no malfunctions of the Peritron+ device during the study. Conclusions Peritron+ handheld device accurately assessed Pves at different intravesical volumes when compared to UD measurements. The Peritron+ is a simple and safe device, which can be used in the office by a clinician and at home by a patient to monitor Pves and help to select patients who may require standard UD re‐evaluation. This will be a valuable tool in managing patients with neurogenic and nonneurogenic bladders who are at a risk of upper urinary tract deterioration.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".