Rating improvements in urinary incontinence: do patients and their physicians agree?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to determine whether patients' perceptions of improvement following behavioural interventions for urinary incontinence (UI) correspond with physicians' global ratings of change, and to compare both these ratings with more objective UI outcome measures. METHODS: consecutive new female patients aged 65 years and older recruited from outpatient UI clinics in Quebec received a behavioural management protocol for UI. At 3-month follow-up, patients and physicians were independently asked for their global impression of change in UI status. Patients completed 3-day voiding diaries and a UI-specific quality-of-life index before and after treatment. RESULTS: 108 patients (mean age 73 +/- 5 years, range 65-86 years) with stress, urge and mixed UI participated. There was concordance between patients' and physicians' ratings of change in 57% of cases. Among the remaining cases, patients were 1.6 times as likely to report significant improvements compared to physicians. Patients' ratings correlated more strongly with improvements in UI episodes in the voiding diary (r = 0.4, P = 0.002 versus r = 0.3, P = 0.004 for physicians) and on the quality-of-life index (r = -0.5, P < 0.0001 versus r = -0.4, P < 0.0001 for physicians). CONCLUSION: physicians underestimate clinically meaningful changes in UI in older women following behavioural interventions.
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 | 0.011 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".