Canadian Urological Association Best Practice Report: Catheter use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MethodsThis best practice report provides a brief and comprehensive discussion of studies examining catheter management for impaired bladder emptying in the setting of neurogenic and nonneurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction.It is based on data obtained from numerous published meta-analyses and original studies identified through literature search using PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane Library database.The bibliographies of relevant articles were also searched to avoid exclusion of important studies.The following narrative review concentrates on systematic reviews, related guidelines and comparative studies.Articles included in this statement were reviewed using methodology consistent with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) for evidence synthesis and recommendations.This best practice statement addressed similar subject matter and scope that is of significance to the Canadian urology practice.Competing interest of authors have been considered and addressed.
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 | 0.037 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".