Reliability of dynamometric passive properties of the pelvic floor muscles in postmenopausal women with stress urinary incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The passive properties of the pelvic floor muscles (PFM) might play a role in stress urinary incontinence (SUI) pathophysiology. AIM: To investigate the test-retest reliability of the dynamometric passive properties of the PFM in postmenopausal SUI women. METHODS: Thirty-two SUI postmenopausal women were convened to two sessions 2 weeks apart. In each session, the measurements were repeated twice. The pelvic floor musculature was evaluated in four different conditions: (1) forces recorded at minimal aperture (initial passive resistance); (2) passive resistance at maximal aperture; (3) five lengthening and shortening cycles (Forces and passive elastic stiffness (PES) were evaluated at different vaginal apertures. Hysteresis was also calculated.); (4) Percentage of passive resistance loss after 1 min of sustained stretching was computed. The generalizability theory was used to calculate two reliability estimates, the dependability indices (Phi) and the standard error of measurement (SEM), for one session involving one measurement or the mean of two measurements. RESULTS: Overall, the reliability of the passive properties was good with indices of dependability of 0.75-0.93. The SEMs for forces and PES were 0.24-0.67 N and 0.03-0.10 N/mm, respectively, for mean, maximal and 20-mm apertures, representing an error between 13% and 23%. Passive forces at minimal aperture showed lower reliability (Phi = 0.51-0.57) compared with other vaginal openings. The aperture at a common force of 0.5 N was the only parameter demonstrating a poor reliability (Phi = 0.35). CONCLUSION: This new approach for assessing PFM passive properties showed enough reliability for highly recommending its inclusion in the PFM assessment of SUI postmenopausal women.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".