MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7057151646

Interstitial Cystitis – Elucidation of Psychophysiologic and Autonomic Characteristics (the ICEPAC Study): design and methods

2014· other· en· W7057151646 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesIWK Health CentreSchool of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel HillSchool of Medicine, University of Alabama at BirminghamNorthwestern UniversityDalhousie UniversityOhio State University
KeywordsAutonomic nervous systemNeurologyMyofascial pain syndromeInterstitial cystitisCentral nervous systemChronic fatigue syndromePathophysiologyMedical diagnosisPsychological stress
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thomas Chelimsky,1 Gisela Chelimsky,1 N Patrick McCabe,2 Megan Louttit,3 Adonis Hijaz,3 Sangeeta Mahajan,3 Tatiana Sanses,3 CA Tony Buffington,4 Bradford Fenton,5 Thomas Janicki,3 Sarah Ialacci,2 Elias Veizi,3 Di Zhang,2 Firouz Daneshgari,2,3 Robert Elston,2 Jeffrey Janata2,31The Medical College of Wisconsin, Departments of Neurology and Gastroenterology, Milwaukee, WI, 2Case Western Reserve University, Department of Neurology, Cleveland, OH, 3University Hospitals Case Medical Center, School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, 4The Ohio State University, Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Columbus, OH, 5Summa Health System, Department of Gynecology, Akron, OH, USABackground and purpose: Interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS) is relatively common and associated with severe pain, yet effective treatment remains elusive. Research typically emphasized the bladder's role, but given the high presence of systemic comorbidities, the authors hypothesized a pathophysiologic nervous system role. This paper reports the methodology and approach to study the nervous system in women with IC/BPS. The study compares neurologic, urologic, gynecologic, autonomic, gastrointestinal, and psychological features of women with IC/BPS, their female relatives, women with myofascial pelvic pain (MPP), and healthy controls to elucidate the role of central and peripheral processing.Methods and results: In total, 228 women (76 IC/BPS, 76 MPP, 38 family members, and 38 healthy controls) will be recruited. Subjects undergo detailed screening, structured neurologic examination of limbs and pelvis, tender point examination, autonomic testing, electrogastrography, and assessment of comorbid functional dysautonomias. Interpreters are blinded to subject classification. Psychological and stress response characteristics are examined with assessments of stress, trauma history, general psychological function, and stress response quantification. As of December 2012, data collection is completed for 25 healthy controls, 33 IC/BPS ± MPP, eight MPP, and three family members. Recruitment rate is accelerating and strategies emphasize maintaining and encouraging investigator participation in study science, internet advertising, and presentations to pelvic pain support groups.Conclusion: The study represents a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach to sampling autonomic and psychophysiologic characteristics of women with IC/BPS. Despite divergent opinions on study methodologies based on specialty experiences, the study has proven feasible to date and different perspectives have proved to be one of the greatest study strengths.Keywords: interstitial cystitis, bladder pain syndrome, autonomic nervous system, psychophysiology, pelvic pain, myofascial pain

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group)Same topicLaser Design and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207