Current controversies in urinary tract infections: ICI‐RS 2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The current definition of urinary tract infection (UTI) relies on laboratory and clinical findings, which may or may not be relevant, depending upon the patient group under consideration. This report considers the utility of current definitions for UTI in adults with and without underlying neurological conditions in order to identify gaps in current understanding and to recommend directions for research. METHODS: This is a consensus report of the proceedings of Think Tank TT3: "How do we define and when do we treat UTI in neurological and non-neurological adult patients?" from the annual International Consultation on Incontinence-Research Society (ICI-RS), June 8-10, 2017 (Bristol, UK). RESULTS: Evidence considering the definitions of UTI in patients with and without neurological diseases was reviewed and synthesized. We examined research on laboratory methods and clinical definitions, focusing on specific cut-off values for the quantification of significant bacteriuria, and leucocyturia. Several areas were identified, mostly related to the lack of evidence-based definitions of significant bacteriuria for different patient groups, as well as uncertainties about the role of inflammatory biomarkers, and non-specific symptoms and signs. CONCLUSIONS: One of the biggest challenges in clinical practice is to discriminate between asymptomatic bacteriuria and symptomatic UTI. Future research should concentrate on risk factors for developing symptomatic UTI in different patient groups. Targeted investigations for specific populations, such as the frail elderly, and patients with neurogenic bladder dysfunction, are still needed.
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 | 0.046 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".