MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Research Priorities for Continence Care and Urogenital Health

2008· review· en· W2029912132 on OpenAlexaff
Suzanne Hagen, Katherine Moore, Lesley Sinclair, Brian S Buckley, Kate Niven

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenitourinary systemMedicineHealth careNursingPolitical scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit (NMAHP RU) is funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates and cohosted by Glasgow Caledonian University and the University of Stirling. A key component of its focus is supporting evidence-based healthcare by undertaking research on issues related to urogenital disorders in males and females including pelvic organ prolapse (POP), lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), and sexual dysfunction. These areas have been understudied and robust research is lacking. Yet, they are frequently identified by clinicians, researchers, patients, and carers as significantly impacting the quality of life of those affected. In consideration of the lack of evidence, and in a quest for researchable topics for subsequent years, the Urogenital Disorders program of NMAHP RU hosted an expert group of clinicians and researchers to help establish a research agenda and priorities for funding. The following report describes the process and the outcomes from the group's deliberations, with reflections from an international perspective.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.006

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wound Ostomy and Continence NursingSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207