Long-term indwelling urinary catheterization and bladder cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bladder cancer is cancer that originates from the bladder mucosa. The causes of bladder cancer are multifactorial. Long-term use of urinary catheters will increase the risk of bladder cancer. There has been no systematic review that discusses the association between indwelling catheters and bladder cancer. We aim to assess the association between long-term indwelling catheters and bladder cancer. We performed a literature search from PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. The data included in the study were only observational studies that were relevant to the study objective. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The data was then synthesized using the Review Manager 5.4 application to determine heterogeneity and cumulative hazard ratio values. There were 640 studies obtained from the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases. After removing 16 duplicated studies, there were 624 results left. Out of these studies, 6 qualified for systematic review. Data on indwelling catheters for bladder cancer are highly heterogeneous. The incidence of individuals with indwelling catheters with probable bladder cancer was 4.87% (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.7–13.96%, I2 = 84%). The use of indwelling catheters significantly increases the risk of bladder cancer (p=0.003). The bias assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa scale (NOS) showed a poor-quality result (4.83 final score). Long-term indwelling catheter are associated significantly with an increased risk of bladder cancer.
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 | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".