Urinary incontinence as a worldwide problem
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This paper reviews the literature on the prevalence of urinary incontinence (UI) and demonstrates its impact as a worldwide problem. METHODS: A MEDLINE search was performed to review population-based studies in English. Studies were grouped according to demographic variables and type of incontinence. Risk factors, help-seeking behavior, and quality of life measures were analyzed. RESULTS: The median prevalence of female UI was 27.6% (range: 4.8-58.4%) and prevalence of significant incontinence increased with age. The commonest cause of UI was stress (50%), then mixed (32%) and finally urge (14%). Risk factors included parity, obesity, chronic cough, depression, poor health, lower urinary tract symptoms, previous hysterectomy, and stroke. Although quality of life was affected, most patients did not seek help. CONCLUSION: UI is a prevalent cross-cultural condition. Future studies should rely on universally accepted standardized definitions to produce meaningful evidence-based conclusions, as well as project the costs of this global healthcare problem.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it