MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767173661 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.4833

A pilot study of the responsiveness of the Neurogenic Bladder Symptom Score (NBSS)

2017· letter· en· W2767173661 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Blayne Welk, Kevin Carlson, Richard Baverstock

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Neurogenic bladder dysfunctionPhysical therapyUrinary incontinenceReliability (semiconductor)Urinary bladderUrinary systemUrologyInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurogenic bladder dysfunction is common and has a significant impact on a person’s quality of life (QoL).1 Prior study in this area has been hampered by a limited number of validated measurement tools.2 The Neurogenic Bladder Symptom Score (NBSS) is a relatively new, 24-item questionnaire that measures bladder symptoms across three different domains: incontinence, storage and voiding, and consequences (with a single general urinary QoL question).3 While validity and reliability has been assessed previously, the responsiveness (the ability of a questionnaire to detect meaningful change) of the NBSS has not been demonstrated. Our objective was to conduct a pilot study to assess the responsiveness of the NBSS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207