Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a common condition affecting millions of women worldwide. It has a significant impact on the quality of life (psychosocial, social and economic well-being) of sufferers and their families. Until recently, treatment options for SUI were limited to conservative treatments such as pelvic floor muscle training, which usually has a poor compliance over time, or surgical procedures that carry the risk of complications and are mainly an option for more severely affected women. Duloxetine, a potent and relatively balanced serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, has been evaluated in phase II and phase III clinical trials and was found to be efficacious and safe in the treatment of women with moderate to severe SUI symptoms. Even in a subgroup of women with severe SUI awaiting surgery, with or without the presence of intrinsic sphincter deficiency, duloxetine was found to be effective. In addition, a good correlation was found between efficacy outcome measures and ratings of global impression scores. Women begin to perceive themselves as being better with treatment when their incontinence episodes frequency (IEF) decreases by 46% or their Incontinence Quality of Life (I-QOL) score improves by 6.3 points. The improvements in IEF and I-QOL obtained with duloxetine were well above these threshold levels, whereas these with placebo were not. All duloxetine responses were observed within 2 weeks. Overall, duloxetine is an effective treatment for a wide variety of women presenting with SUI symptoms. It has been approved in Europe for the treatment of women with moderate to severe SUI symptoms and is now available in many European countries.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".