MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1893741760 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.327

The autologous fascia pubovaginal sling for complicated female

2013· article· en· W1893741760 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Blayne Welk, Sender Herschorn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUrinary incontinenceSling (weapon)SurgeryGenitourinary systemRetrospective cohort studyQuality of life (healthcare)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The purpose of this study is to review our contemporary experience with autologous fascia pubovaginal slings (AF-PVS) in the era of the midurethral sling.Methods: A retrospective review was completed to identify allpatients who underwent an AF-PVS between 2002 and 2009. Across-sectional questionnaire was used to assess postoperative urinary- specific quality of life (consisting of the Urogenital Distress Inventory [UDI-6] and the Incontinence Impact Questionnaires [IIQ-7]).Results: We identified 33 patients. They had failed a median oftwo previous incontinence treatments. Of these patients, 16 (48%) had failed a previous midurethral sling, and of these half had experienced a significant mesh erosion necessitating mesh removal. Preoperative median incontinence pad usage was 5/day. After a median follow-up of 16 months from the time of AF-PVS, the median pad usage had decreased to 1/day (p = 0.003). A third of the patients had postoperative urgency, and only 1 patient continues to use intermittent catheterization. The median IIQ-7 score was 19/100, and the median UDI-6 score was 44/100. Overall quality of life was mixed-to-delighted in 62% of patients.Conclusions: The AF-PVS has reasonable outcomes in a diversepopulation of patients, despite failure of other treatment modalities.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.230 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations22
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207