Is It Possible to Regenerate the Underactive Detrusor? Part 2. Electrical Stimulation Therapies, Treatment of Bladder Outlet Obstruction, Constipation, and Pelvic Floor Disorders ‐ ICI‐RS 2024
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Detrusor muscle weakness is commonly noted on urodynamics in patients with refractory voiding difficulty. No clinical therapy has been proven to augment the strength of a detrusor contraction. METHODS: This subject was discussed at a think-tank at the International Consultation on Incontinence-Research Society (ICI-RS) held in Bristol, June 2024. The discussions of the think-tank are being published in two parts. This second part discusses the role of electrical stimulation therapies, treatment of bladder outlet obstruction, constipation, and pelvic floor disorders, in the enhancement of strength of a detrusor contraction. RESULTS: Electrical stimulation therapies, specifically sacral neuromodulation, have long been used in the salvage of patients with refractory nonobstructive voiding dysfunction. Clinical improvements can be noted in men following bladder outlet resistance reduction surgery especially, though not limited to those with demonstrable obstruction. Some patients may also show improvement with pelvic floor relaxation therapies and constipation care. However, there is a lack of high-quality urodynamic data to demonstrate an improvement in the strength of a detrusor contraction with these therapies. The think-tank recommends standards for future clinical studies examining treatments aimed at improving an underactive detrusor. CONCLUSIONS: Studies need to examine whether clinical improvement following treatment of patients with an underactive detrusor is associated with improvement in strength of the detrusor contraction. New therapeutic options should apply specified standards for assessing and reporting the impact on detrusor contraction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".