A behavioural weight-loss programme reduced urinary incontinence more than an education programme in overweight and obese womenCommentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In overweight and obese women, does a behavioural weight-loss programme reduce incontinence more than an education programme? ### Design: randomised controlled trial (Program to Reduce Incontinence by Diet and Exercise [PRIDE]). ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00091988. ### Allocation: {concealed}.* ### Blinding: blinded (outcome assessors). ### Follow-up period: 6 months. ### Setting: Providence, Rhode Island and Birmingham, Alabama, USA. ### Patients: 338 women ⩾30 years of age (mean age 53 y) who had a body mass index of 25–50 and ⩾10 episodes of urinary incontinence over 1 week, monitored food intake and physical activity for 1 week, could walk unassisted for 2 blocks without stopping, and agreed to not begin new treatments for incontinence or weight reduction during the study. Exclusion criteria included use of medications for incontinence or weight loss in the past month, current urinary tract infection or ⩾4 in the past year, neurological or functional incontinence, …
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".