Is there an urban-rural-gradient in patients with urinary incontinence?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to determine whether the responses to the same questionnaire differ between women living in a large city and women living in a rural area. METHODS: We evaluated the medical records of 88 patients living in the large city of Cologne and of 86 patients living in Brühl and its surrounding rural regions. The responses on the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-SF) of 88 patients who suffer from urinary incontinence and live in a large city were compared to the responses 86 patients who live the rural region of Brühl. In addition, ages, frequency of micturition, use of pads, prior and desired treatment were compared. Limitations of this study include its retrospective study design and the absence of sociodemographic data. Furthermore, the use of a pad test could objectify the extent of incontinence. RESULTS: On average, patients from Cologne used of 6.2 pads and patients from Brühl used 3 pads. Patients from the large city scored 14 out of 21 points on the ICIQ-SF, and women from Brühl scored 11 out of 21 points. This difference was significant. Patients from Cologne had received medicinal treatment or physical therapy significantly more often. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that urinary incontinence is perceived as a greater impairment by patients residing in (large) cities compared to patients residing in rural areas. An urban-rural gradient in patients with urinary incontinence can be described.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".