Is the value of urodynamics undermined by poor technique?: ICI‐RS 2018
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The quality of urodynamic measurements in clinical practice has been debated as a matter of concern. It is considered plausible that this has a direct bearing on patient care and the perceived value of urodynamic testing. METHODS: This is a report of the proceedings of the Think Tank: "Is the value of urodynamics undermined by poor technique?" from the Annual International Consultation on Incontinence-Research Society, which took place in June 2018 in Bristol, UK. The Think Tank discussed the evidence for deficiencies in urodynamic test quality and considered the implications of improvements for clinical diagnosis and practice. RESULTS: There is evidence that technique affects urodynamic quality, and that urodynamic practice is variable. Factors such as team skill set, technologies used, and training received will also affect the quality of urodynamic service. Questions exist regarding the influence of technique on the utility and perceived value of urodynamics. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest research questions that will provide the necessary evidence on the link between technique, reporting, and outcome, and clarify the role of good practice in the utility of urodynamic testing.
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 | 0.000 | 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".