Urge urinary incontinence was associated with increased risk of falls and non-spinal, non-traumatic fractures in older women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brown JS, Vittinghoff E, Wyman JF , et al for the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Urinary incontinence: does it increase risk for falls and fractures? J Am Geriatr Soc2000 Jul; 48 : 721 –5 [OpenUrl][1][PubMed][2][Web of Science][3] QUESTION: In community dwelling older white women, does weekly or more frequent urge and stress urinary incontinence increase risk of falls and non-spinal, non-traumatic fractures? Cohort study with mean follow up of 3 years (Study of Osteoporotic Fractures [SOF]). 4 clinical care centres in Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, and Pennsylvania, USA. 6049 community dwelling, ambulatory, white women who were ≥65 years of age (mean age 79 y), attended 5 SOF clinic or home visits, completed a physical examination and self administered questionnaire, provided data on urinary incontinence, and returned ≥1 postcard reporting falls after visit 5. Institutionalised women were excluded. Live births; hysterectomy status; smoking status; alcohol use; walking; total weekly excursions outside of the … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJournal%2Bof%2Bthe%2BAmerican%2BGeriatrics%2BSociety%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BAm%2BGeriatr%2BSoc%26rft.aulast%253DBrown%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%2BS.%26rft.volume%253D48%26rft.issue%253D7%26rft.spage%253D721%26rft.epage%253D725%26rft.atitle%253DUrinary%2Bincontinence%253A%2Bdoes%2Bit%2Bincrease%2Brisk%2Bfor%2Bfalls%2Band%2Bfractures%253F%2BStudy%2Bof%2BOsteoporotic%2BFractures%2BResearch%2BGroup.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F10894308%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10894308&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F4%2F1%2F26.atom [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000088124700001&link_type=ISI
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".