The “Footprint” Sign in Voiding Cystourethrography Indicates Poor Renal Function in Vesicoureteral Reflux: Is It a Pop-Off Mechanism?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: To assess the “footprint” sign in voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG) for its diagnostic and prognostic significance in indicating a “pop-off” mechanism that may reduce pressure on the contralateral kidney. Methods: A retrospective analysis included patients with a “footprint” sign or high-grade vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) in VCUG. They were categorized into two groups: those with (Group A) and those without (Group B) the “footprint” sign. Results: Among 55 patients (median age 18 months), 18 exhibited the “footprint” sign. Group A had predominantly male patients. Bilateral VUR was less common in Group A (38.9%) compared to Group B (51.4%), though not statistically significant (p-value: 0.385). The “footprint” sign was predominantly associated with the left side (77.8% in Group A). The median differential renal function (DRF) was significantly lower in kidneys with the “footprint” sign (11.5%) compared to those without (44.5%, p-value < 0.001). All patients with a DRF under 20% exhibited the “footprint” sign. Conclusions: The “footprint” sign correlates with poor renal function, suggesting a potential pop-off mechanism protecting the contralateral kidney. Management should prioritize the contralateral kidney with normal function. The “footprint” sign alone in VCUG may suffice to indicate compromised renal function, negating the need for further ipsilateral kidney assessment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".