Quality of Life Assessment in Men and Women With Urinary Incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The literature on assessment of quality of life from 1993 to 2001 was reviewed to evaluate and compare existing measures through their psychometric value and make adequate recommendations on their clinical use and future research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We selected quality of life articles and abstracts from Current Content 1996 to 1997 and MEDLINE 1993 to 1996 for our first report presented at the first consultation on incontinence in Monaco in 1998. This report was then updated up to September 2001 using the same strategy. We made our recommendations based on our clinical and research experience with these tools. RESULTS: Several quality of life generic or disease specific questionnaires have been published for male and female urinary incontinence. However, their psychometric value is far from uniform and for most of them responsiveness is weak or has never been reported. CONCLUSIONS: Few quality of life questionnaires are at an advanced enough stage of development to be applied in clinical practice. However, even with these questionnaires more study remains to be done to make them shorter, sometimes even more specific and easier to use in different populations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".