MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402316979 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.8972

NS-AUA 2024 Annual Meeting Abstracts – Infertility, Impotence, General Urology

2024· article· en· W4402316979 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Editor CUAJ

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrologyInfertilityGynecologyMedicineBiologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction:We investigated whether absence of detrusor contraction in a urodynamic chair was observed when patients assumed a more normal voiding position and surface.We hypothesized that patients without demonstrable bladder contractions during urodynamics (UDS) or on UDS chair after permission to void may be able to mount a bladder contraction after changing to a more normal voiding position. Methods:We conducted a retrospective cohort study analyzing UDS over two years.UDS reads were screened for positional changes from UDS chair to either commode or standing when patients were unable to void.Studies with positional changes after permission to void were re-analyzed by two masked neurourologists.Data collected included: time spent attempting to void in UDS chair, whether bladder contraction was present, pdet/Qmax, Qmax when voiding occurred, time spent attempting to void after moving, presence of bladder contraction in new position, and new pdet/Qmax and Qmax.Results: Ninety-four of 503 patients were identified to have moved to the commode or a standing position due to unsatisfactory or absent void on the UDS chair.Of these, 81/94 (86.2%) studies were interpretable.Average time spent attempting to void on the UDS chair was 8.41 minutes +/-4.1.In the new position, the patients averaged 2.29+/-1.9minutes to void.Of the 81 patients identified with unsatisfactory or absent void on the UDS chair, 69 (85.2%) demonstrated bladder contraction in the new position.Agreement between providers on presence of bladder contraction in the UDS chair showed that 91.4% were congruent (k=0.78).For presence of bladder contraction on the commode/standing, 88.9% were congruent (k=0.42).Of those that were congruent (N=44/55), 80% of the patients unable to demonstrate a bladder contraction on the UDS chair were then able to demonstrate bladder contraction in the new position.If contraction was present, we compared the pdet/Qmax and Qmax on the UDS chair to the pdet/ Qmax and Qmax in the new position.The average pdet/Qmax on the UDS chair was 6.86+/-11.8cm H2O vs. the average pdet/Qmax in the new position, which was 25.9+/-17.9cm H2O (p=<0.001).The mean Bladder Outlet Obstruction Index (BOOI) on the chair was 13.3+/-14.4.The mean BOOI on the commode/ standing was 38.3+/-28.6.The mean Bladder Cancer Index (BCI) on the chair was 13.6+/-15.1,and 61.7+/-31.6 on the commode/standing (p<0.001).Conclusions: Atonic bladder/hypotonic bladder can be misdiagnosed based on measuring voiding only in a UDS chair.Moving to a more natural seating such as a commode or standing can improve measurement of detrusor function.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1400.027

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207