Continence products: Research priorities to improve the lives of people with urinary and/or fecal leakage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although many successful treatments for incontinence exist they are not effective or suitable for all people. Inconspicuous and dependable management with continence products and devices plays a crucial part in maintaining quality of life. We aim to briefly review what is known and not known in the field of continence products and devices and set out suggested priorities for research and development. The field of continence product research encompasses techniques and designs from basic laboratory science, through to clinical trials of products and to evaluations of service delivery models. Priorities for research include determining prevalence and costs of product use, development of patient reported outcomes, and development of methods for measuring skin health and for quantifying urine/faecal leakage. Product development priorities include better washable pads for women, absorbent products for fecal incontinence and flatus filters. Clinical trials of different product categories (e.g., devices for men) are needed, as are qualitative studies of patient experiences of product use.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".