[Evaluation of the Global Abdominal Method (ABDO-MG) in the treatment of urinary incontinence].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS OF STUDY: Assessment of the Abdominal Global Method (ABDO-MG) in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence or mixed incontinence with stress predominance in women. METHODS: Thirty patients with clinically and urodynamically proven genuine stress incontinence or mixed incontinence with stress predominance were enrolled. Patients had 4 weeks of ABDO-MG technique under supervision and a home unit to do their exercises, then 8 weeks of home exercises without home unit or supervision. We compared the results for each patient before the treatment, at 4 and 12 weeks post initiation of the technique. Main outcome measures were short Pad test with standardized bladder volume and exercises as well as self-report of degrees of incontinence. RESULTS: The data showed improvement in leakage on short Pad test from 82.0 g before versus 38.8 g and 24.8 g at 4 and 12 weeks respectively (p = 0.0002). Seventeen of thirty patients were completely dry. All patients reported improvement of their condition after 4 weeks of exercises and almost cure at 12 weeks (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study demonstrating the clinical efficacy, both objectively and subjectively, of the technique ABDO-MG in the treatment of genuine stress urinary incontinence and mixed incontinence with stress predominance in women. Our data are encouraging, however long-term study with control group is warranted.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".