A Novel Capacitive Method for Urodynamic Measurements That is Suitable for Home Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Urinary incontinence is highly prevalent in both women and men. Urodynamic testing is essential for diagnosis, but a gap exists in the usefulness of simple assessments that do not provide sufficient data, and devices that provide the necessary data, but are used primarily in clinics and clinical trials. This study considered the existing methods of urodynamics testing and developed a device that was both effective and suitable for home use. Methods: A review of existing urodynamic methods led to development of a capacitive device. We created a device with sensor electrodes placed on the outside of a specimen container. The functionality of the electrodes and performance of the novel capacitive device were compared with that of a gravimetric device (Dorado KT, Laborie Medical Technologies, Mississauga, ON, Canada) used at the University Clinical Center, Maribor. Results: Measurements of fluid volume (p = 0.936), maximum (p = 0.327), and mean (p = 0.136) flow observed with the two devices were not significantly different. Graphical analysis of collected volumes and flow variation over time show a high degree of overlap. Conclusion: Compared with previously developed urodynamics testing devices, the capacitance method and the performance of this device represent an advance. The precision of the measurements needs improvement and did not fully address the recommendations of the International Continence Society, but he use of additional sensor electrodes is expected to improve performance. Extending the functionality as a standalone capacitive device for home use and upgrading with wireless access by mobile systems would allow for additional benefits beyond current voiding diaries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".