MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251518977 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.1346

Sacral neuromodulation outcomes for the treatment of refractory idiopathic detrusor overactivity stratified by indication – lack of anticholinergic efficacy versus intolerability

2013· article· en· W4251518977 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tanya D. Davis, Iryna Makovey, Michael L. Guralnick, R. Corey O’Connor

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnticholinergicMedicineRefractory (planetary science)Overactive bladderNeuromodulationSacral nerve stimulationOxybutyninAnticholinergic agentsUrologyInternal medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Patients may fail oral overactive bladder therapies due to either poor drug efficacy or intolerability. We determined if the success of sacral neuromodulation varies if performed secondary to lack of anticholinergic efficacy versus drug intolerability.Methods: A retrospective review was performed on 152 patients undergoing staged sacral neuromodulation from 2004 to 2010 for refractory idiopathic detrusor overactivity with or without urge incontinence. Outcomes following sacral neuromodulation trials were compared based on the primary indication for anticholinergic failure: lack of drug efficacy versus intolerable side effects.Results: Overall, successful sacral neuromodulation trials were reported in 70% (106/152) of patients. Successful outcomes were noted in 70% (89/128) and 71% (17/24) of patients with poor anticholinergic efficacy and drug intolerability, respectively (p = NS).Conclusions: We found no significant difference in outcome success in patients undergoing sacral neuromodulation trials for refractory detrusor overactivity due to lack of anticholinergic efficacy versus intolerability.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207