MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Use of Polyacrylamide Hydrogel for Vesicoureteral Reflux Treatment, a Review

2019· review· en· W2996948462 on OpenAlexaffabout
Francis Lemire, Anne‐Sophie Blais, Katherine H. Moore, Stéphane Bolduc

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nephrological Science · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Urology and Nephrology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVesicoureteral refluxMedicinePolyacrylamideHydronephrosisSurgeryRefluxScarsSiliconeUrologyInternal medicineUrinary systemDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose of the review: Vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) is a common pathology encountered in pediatric urology. If left untreated, this condition can lead to infectious complications, hypertension and loss of renal function by scars. There is a trend for minimally invasive procedures to minimise treatment-related complications. Endoscopic subureteral injection of bulking agent in the treatment of VUR is an example of minimally invasive options. Several bulking agents have been studied and the perfect agent has not yet been discovered. Polyacrylamide hydrogel is a relatively new agent used to treat VUR and its use will be reviewed. Recent findings: Three modern studies from a Canadian group have evaluated the use of polyacrylamide hydrogel for endoscopic injection to treat VUR. The first study reported a cure rate of 81.2% without major complication. In the second study, injection of polyacrylamide hydrogel was compared to dextranomer hyaluronic acid and no significant difference was observed, with overall success rate of 73.1% and 77.5% respectively. The third trial evaluated the long-term efficacy and safety of polyacrylamide hydrogel with a 36-month follow-up. Overall success at 3 months was 70.7% and no patient had de novo hydronephrosis or calcification of the agent at 36 months. Conclusion: Polyacrylamide hydrogel seems to be a safe and effective alternative bulking agent in the treatment of VUR. The contribution from other centers to validate those data would be valuable.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.307
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.139 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nephrological Science→Same topicPediatric Urology and Nephrology Studies→French-language works237,207→