A population‐based study of urinary symptoms and incontinence: the Canadian Urinary Bladder Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the prevalence of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and urinary incontinence (UI) in Canada, using a cross-Canada telephone survey, as there is a wide discrepancy in the reported prevalence of these conditions. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A random survey with a standardized questionnaire was conducted to elicit responses from 1000 adults, aged >or= 18 years; the sample was intended to reflect the population census. Data on age, level of education and household income were obtained from all respondents. All participants were questioned about urinary symptoms and daytime and night-time voids. For those who reported more symptoms than one episode of nocturia a more detailed questionnaire was used to ascertain symptom severity and duration. RESULTS: Data were analysed from 1000 respondents (482 men, mean age 44 years; 518 women, mean age 45 years). Half the respondents (43% of men and 57% of women) reported one or more LUTS, with nocturia the most common, at 36%. Overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms (urgency, with or with no urgency UI, usually with frequency and nocturia) were reported by 13.9% of respondents (13.1% of men and 14.7% of women). UI was reported by 28.8% of women with the 68% of these having stress UI (SUI), followed by mixed UI (MUI) in 21%, and urgency UI (UUI) in 11%. Of the 5.4% of men with UI, 27% had SUI, 15% had MUI, and 58% had UUI. Overall, the prevalence of LUTS increased with age. Respondents reported that symptoms were present for a median of 5 years. CONCLUSION: LUTS and UI are common in the Canadian population and increase with age. The prevalence in Canada of these conditions is similar to that seen in other countries.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".