MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1967732824 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.11083

Moving beyond ineffective medication for OAB

2011· article· en· W1967732824 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Stephen Steele

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is intriguing when reading articles extolling the virtues of anticholinergic medication in the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB) that very little time is spent exploring the issue of quality of life which, in essence, is the major complaint of this patient population.1 Unfortunately, compliance to anticholinergic medication secondary to side effects and poor patient perceived benefit in symptom reduction are extremely poor. Current data document medication adherence rates of less than 35%.2 This means two-thirds of our OAB patients are no better than when they initially saw us in consult and have had no improvement in their quality of life! The data on Botulinum toxin A (BTX A) are much more encouraging. As I reported earlier,3 a recent study by Sahai and colleagues used the Kings Health Questionnaire (KHQ) and demonstrated that the KHQ subdomains were all significantly improved in patients who received BTX A compared with placebo.4 Dmochowski has reported similar statistically significant improvements.5 It is difficult to understand the resistance to BTX A. Opponents suggest that BTX A should be second- or third-line therapy secondary to the possible risks of the procedure. The two biggest issues (distal muscle weakness and urinary retention) are definitely important possible complications. However, distal muscle weakness has never been reported post-BTX A injection for idiopathic OAB.6 This has only occurred in neurogenic OAB patients, which is an entirely different patient population. The rate of urinary retention is decreasing as we continue to modify and decrease our dose; even those unfortunate enough to go into retention still have a markedly improved quality of life.7 While many suggest that BTX A should be reserved for patients who have failed first-line therapy, I would suggest that failing anticholinergic medication is likely a foregone conclusion. Thus, it seems entirely appropriate that BTX A, with its statistically significant increased efficacy, improved patient quality of life and low side effect profile should be the first-line treatment for OAB, rather than toiling on with ineffective treatment with intolerable side effects.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0080.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.011

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Same topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research→French-language works237,207→