Development of a dynamometer for measuring the isometric force of the pelvic floor musculature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to design and develop a dynamometer providing a direct measurement of pelvic floor muscle (PFM) strength. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two pairs of strain gauges were mounted on the moveable branch of a dynamometric speculum allowing measurements at different vaginal apertures. Linearity, repeatability, independence of the site of application of the resultant force to the lower branch of the speculum and hysteresis were tested by means of in vitro calibration studies. RESULTS: The linearity proved excellent over a range of 0-15 N with regression coefficients close to unity between imposed loads and voltage outputs. The slopes and intercepts of the regression lines were not significantly different between repeated sessions, indicating the high reliability of these in vitro measurements. The slopes and intercepts of the calibrations, using the same repertoire of loads imposed at three locations on the moving branch of the dynamometer, were not significantly different, confirming that the force measurement is independent of the site of the force application. Hysteresis was considered to be minimal. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the dynamometer provides reliable measurements. The new device thus appears to have conceptual and measuring advantages over conventional methods and seems to be a very promising instrument for measuring pelvic floor strength.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".