Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction and Objectives: Estimating bladder capacity is important in the evaluation of many urological disorders.For estimates to be of clinical value, precise reference ranges are needed.While accepted reference ranges have been established in adults and older children, none have been validated in infants.The formula [2* age (years) + 2] (ounces) is commonly utilized for children less than 2 years of age.It defines an average bladder capacity of 60 to 120 ml for children from birth to 12 months of age.Our anecdotal experience suggests this range is frequently an over-estimate.The purpose of this study was to determine the normal bladder capacity of infants.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of children aged 0-12 months with cutaneous stigmata of spinal dysraphism referred to the urology clinic at CHEO to rule out occult spinal bifida between October 2004 and July 2011.Asymptomatic patients with normal investigations including abdominopelvic ultrasound and urodynamic testing were included in the analysis.Urodynamic studies were performed using the Laborie Medical Technologies UDS-600.Bladder filling occurred via a catheter at a rate of 10% of the expected total bladder capacity/min Bladder capacity was determined when the child voided around the catheter.We analyzed age, bladder capacity, detrusor pressure at capacity, bladder compliance and length of follow up.Results: Forty-six percent (84/183) of patients met the study inclusion criteria.The mean age was 8.2 months (SD=3.1).Mean bladder capacity was 46.8 ml (SD=30.6)and the mean detrusor pressure at capacity was 9.0 cmH2O (SD=11.1).Mean compliance was 14.0 ml/cmH2O (SD=13.8).The average length of follow up was 41.5 months (SD=26.9).Conclusions: Bladder capacity in infants with a mean age of 8.2 months was found to be 46.8 ml.This is less than half of the volume predicted by a commonly employed formula.A novel method of estimating bladder capacity in infants is required.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.551 | 0.272 |
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".