Comparison of water and air charged transducer catheter pressures in the evaluation of cystometrogram and voiding pressure studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims Air‐charged (AC) and water‐perfused (WP) catheters have been evaluated for differences in measuring pressures for voiding dysfunction. Typically, a two‐catheter system was used. We believe that simultaneous pressure measurements with AC and WP in a single catheter will provide analogous pressures for coughs, Valsalvas, and maximum pressures in voiding pressure studies (VPS). Methods This IRB approved prospective study included 50 women over age 21. AC dual TDOC catheters were utilized. The water‐filling channel served as the bladder filler and the water pressure readings. Patients were evaluated with empty bladders and at volumes of 50‐100 mL, 200 mL, and maximum capacity with cough and Valsalva maneuvers. Comparative analysis was performed on maximum stress peak pressures. At maximum bladder capacity, VPS was done and maximum voiding pressure was recorded. Results Comparing coughs and Valsalva maneuvers pressures, there was significant increase in variability between AC and WP measurements with less than 50 mL volume ( P < 0.001). Significant correlations were observed between AC and WP measurements for coughs and Valsalvas with bladder volume over 50 mL. Visual impression showed virtually identical tracings. Cough measurements had an average difference of 0.25 cmH 2 O (±8.81) and Valsalva measurements had an average difference of 3.15 cmH 2 O (±4.72). Thirty‐eight women had usable maximum voiding pressure measurements and had a strong correlation. Conclusions Cystometrogram and maximum voiding pressure measurements done with either water or air charged catheters will yield similarly accurate results and are comparable. Results suggest more variability at low bladder volumes <50 mL.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".