MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415957230 · doi:10.1002/nau.70177

Advancing Personalized Care for Neurogenic Bladder What Medical Management Should be First Line for Bladder Storage Symptoms in NLUTD: Pro Anticholinergic

2025· review· en· W4415957230 on OpenAlexaff
Aalya Hamouda, Claudia Covarrubias, Lysanne Campeau

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurourology and Urodynamics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnticholinergicFirst lineFirst line treatmentAnticholinergic agentsUrinary bladderPatient safetyPersonalized medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To discuss the benefits and considerations of anticholinergic therapy as first-line treatment for bladder storage symptoms in patients with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD), integrating evidence-based data and clinical experience. METHODS: A narrative review of international guideline recommendations, available clinical evidence, and professional experience was undertaken to evaluate the role of anticholinergics in managing disorders of bladder storage, such as neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO) and intrinsic sphincter dyssynergia (NISD), in patients with NLUTD. RESULTS: Evidence from published studies and guideline statements supports anticholinergics as effective agents for improving lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), detrusor overactivity (DO), and overall bladder function in patients with NLUTD. Their use has also been associated with prevention of secondary urinary complications. CONCLUSIONS: Anticholinergics remain recommended first-line therapy for bladder storage dysfunction in NLUTD. Clinical use should be guided by individual patient characteristics, balancing efficacy in symptom control with potential side effects and long-term safety considerations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurourology and UrodynamicsSame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207