Programming settings and recharge interval in a prospective study of a rechargeable sacral neuromodulation system for the treatment of overactive bladder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The RELAX-OAB study is designed to confirm the safety, efficacy, and technical performance of the Axonics r-SNM System, a miniaturized, rechargeable SNM system approved in Europe and Canada for the treatment of bladder and bowel dysfunction. The purpose of this article is to describe study subjects' ability to charge the rechargeable neurostimulator and to document their neurostimulator program settings and recharge interval over time. METHODS: Fifty-one OAB patients were implanted in a single-stage procedure. These results represent the 3-month charging experience for 48 subjects who completed the 3-month follow-up. Recharge intervals were estimated using therapy stimulation settings and subject experience was evaluated using questionnaires. RESULTS: Forty-seven of forty-eight (98%) subjects were able to successfully charge their device prior to follow-up within 1-month post-implant. At 3-month post-implant, 98% of subjects were able to charge prior to their follow-up visit. Average stimulation amplitude across all subjects was 1.8 mA (±1.1 mA). A total of 69% of subjects had ≥14-day recharge intervals (time between charging) and 98% of subjects had ≥7-day recharge interval. No charging related adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Study subjects were able to charge the Axonics r-SNM System and stimulation settings provided 2 weeks of therapy between recharging for most subjects. Subject satisfaction indicates that subjects are satisfied with rechargeable SNM therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".