MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exercise and Urinary Incontinence in Women

2004· review· en· W2080517588 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUrinary incontinenceAthletesUrinary systemQuality of life (healthcare)Stress incontinencePhysical therapyRisk factorUrologyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urinary incontinence is a common problem in women and may significantly impair their quality of life. Although women often report stress urinary incontinence during exercise, current data indicates that most types of exercise are not a risk factor for the development of urinary incontinence. However, certain extreme high-impact sports such as parachute jumping may cause pelvic organ support defects that result in stress urinary incontinence. Eating disorders also increase the risk of urinary incontinence in athletes. Overall, women should be encouraged to pursue physical activity that will benefit their general health without the risk of development of urinary incontinence later in life. Women athletes should be counseled about the increased risk of urinary incontinence with ultra high-impact sports and eating disorders. Target Audience: Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Family Practitioners Learning Objectives: After completion of this article, the reader should be able to list the most common types of urinary incontinence, to outline the risk factors for the development of urinary incontinence, and to describe the pathogenesis of exercise-associated urinary incontinence.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.276 · 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