Similar artefact susceptibility for water‐ and air‐filled urodynamic systems: a non‐inferiority randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether air-filled systems (AFS) provide comparable urodynamic investigation (UDI) trace quality to water-filled systems (WFS), the recommended standard by the International Continence Society. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 490 patients undergoing UDI from April 2021 to January 2022 were included in this non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. Eligible patients were female and male adults with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD). Patients were allocated by block randomisation in a 1:1 ratio to undergo UDI using a WFS (n = 244) or an AFS (n = 246). The primary endpoint was artefact susceptibility evaluated by a 'blinded' assessor using a modified 'Bristol UTraQ' quality scoring scale ranging from 0 to 18, with higher scores indicating a better quality. A clinically meaningful non-inferiority margin was pre-specified as -2 points on the quality scoring scale (AFS-WFS). RESULTS: The median (interquartile range [IQR]) overall quality score was 14.5 (13.5-15.5) points for the WFS and 15.5 (14.5-16.5) points for the AFS. Inferiority of AFS could be rejected at the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.68-1.25; P < 0.001). Artefacts were more frequent in WFS. Typical artefacts consisted of repeat rectal contractions, poor pressure transmission during cough test at empty bladder, and detrusor resting pressure outside of the physiological range at empty bladder. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that AFS are non-inferior to WFS regarding overall urodynamic trace quality in patients with NLUTD.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".