Optimism in Women Undergoing Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although studies suggest that optimism can predict health outcomes, the relationship has not been tested in women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). This study sought to explore the relationship between optimism, prolapse severity, and symptoms before operation; and examine whether optimism predicts postsurgical functional status, treatment satisfaction, and treatment success. STUDY DESIGN: Data from the randomized Colpopexy and Urinary Reduction Efforts (CARE) study, in which stress continent women undergoing sacrocolpopexy to repair stage II to IV POP completed a baseline assessment of optimism and validated symptom and quality-of-life measures at baseline and 24 months. Relationships between optimism and demographics, clinical status, and functional and quality-of-life outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Of 322 Colpopexy and Urinary Reduction Efforts study participants, 305 (94.7%) completed 24-month followup interviews. At baseline, there were no notable differences in optimism with respect to POP stage or history of earlier operations for prolapse or urinary incontinence. At baseline, women with greater optimism reported markedly better physical and mental functioning (p ≤ 0.001) and less symptom distress (p ≤ 0.01). Two years after operation, the difference in symptom experience across the three optimism categories narrowed; all women reported improved health status, fewer symptoms, and less impact on daily activities. Satisfaction with treatment and perception of treatment success were not associated with optimism. CONCLUSIONS: In women planning operation for POP, optimism is related to pelvic symptom severity, but is not associated with satisfaction with treatment or treatment success. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy resulted in substantial improvements in quality of life and functional outcomes that were not notably influenced by optimism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".