Best practices for cystometric evaluation of lower urinary tract function in muriform rodents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Rodent cystometry has provided valuable insights into the impact of the disease, injury, and aging on the cellular and molecular pathways, neurologic processes, and biomechanics of lower urinary tract function. The purpose of this white paper is to highlight the benefits and shortcomings of different experimental methods and strategies and to provide guidance on the proper interpretation of results. METHODS: Literature search, selection of articles, and conclusions based on discussions among a panel of workers in the field. RESULTS: A range of cystometric tests and techniques used to explore biological phenomena relevant to the lower urinary tract are described, the advantages and disadvantages of various experimental conditions are discussed, and guidance on the practical aspects of experimental execution and proper interpretation of results are provided. CONCLUSIONS: Cystometric evaluation of rodents comprises an extensive collection of functional tests that can be performed under a variety of experimental conditions. Decisions regarding which approaches to choose should be determined by the specific questions to be addressed and implementation of the test should follow standardized procedures.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".