MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993301234 · doi:10.4021/jocmr2009.04.1232

Prevalence of Urinary Incontinence in Female Residents of American Nursing Homes and Association with Neuropsychiatric Disorders

2009· article· en· W1993301234 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Sami Walid

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUrinary incontinenceDepression (economics)DementiaAnxietyPsychiatrySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Psychological interventionNursing homesDiseaseGerontologyNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence (UI) is most common in older women. METHODS: We studied the prevalence of UI among female residents of nursing homes and the influence of associated neuropsychiatric problems on the rates of UI using the results of the 2004 National Nursing Home Survey (NNHS). RESULTS: Analysis shows that 37% of female nursing home residents are incontinent, especially those with dementia. Residents with depression or schizophrenia are also more likely to have UI whereas those with anxiety, paranoia, or obsessive-compulsive disorder have less UI rates. There are significant associations with neuropsychiatric disorders except for bipolar disease. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend prioritizing behavioral interventions and environmental manipulations for female residents with dementia, depression, and schizophrenia to increase the cost-effectiveness of UI management programs in nursing homes. KEYWORDS: Urinary incontinence; Female residents; Nursing home; Neurodegenerative; Psychiatric.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.415 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207