MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046154712 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.11185

Systematic review of overactive bladder therapy in females

2011· article· en· W2046154712 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Linda Cardozo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOveractive bladderMedicinePharmacotherapyModalitiesIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePharmacologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the prevalence of overactive bladder (OAB) is similar in both male and female populations, females have a greater tendency to seek medical advice regarding their symptoms. A review of the evidence of therapy among women shows that a variety of modalities has been shown to be effective for symptom improvement in women with OAB. Bladder retraining/re-education should be considered for all women with OAB. With respect to first-line pharmacotherapy with antimuscarinic agents, the development of extended release preparations, bladder selective M3 antagonists and alternative routes of delivery, have improved compliance and persistence. Other pharmacotherapeutic options with potential for providing benefit include antidepressants, vasopressin analogues, alpha-adrenoceptor antagonists and beta-adrenoceptor agonists. There are also a number of newer agents currently being investigated, including calcium channel blocking agents, potassium channel opening drugs, beta agonists and neurokinin receptor antagonists. Intravesical injections of botulinum toxin may be an alternative, while surgery can be considered for truly intractable cases.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0080.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207