MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091962593 · doi:10.1155/2013/957547

Sexual Function in Women with Stress Urinary Incontinence Treated with the SPARC Sling System

2013· article· en· W2091962593 on OpenAlexaff
Badereddin Mohamad Al–Ali, Rany Shamloul, Georg C. Hutterer, Erika Puchwein, Karl Pummer, Alexander Avian, Günter Primus

Bibliographic record

VenueBioMed Research International · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrgasmMedicineSexual functionUrinary incontinenceSling (weapon)ArousalUrologySexually activeGynecologySexual dysfunctionInternal medicineSurgeryPsychologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To evaluate the impact of SPARC on female sexual function. METHODS: 151 women with a mean age of 60 ± 11.90 and SUI had a complete urodynamic investigation and underwent SPARC operation. 98 women completed the validated female sexual function index questionnaire (FSFI) at baseline and 94 women at follow-up. A minimum follow-up of 12 months was required for study inclusion. RESULTS: 52/98 women were sexually active at baseline. Postoperatively only 33 patients were sexually active. The FSFI score of all 33 pre- and postoperative sexually active women increased from 25.3 ± 5.7 at baseline to 27.4 ± 4.8 at follow-up (P = 0.1). Scores of women with reduced sexual function at baseline increased significantly in the domains desire, arousal, and lubrication as well as orgasm and satisfaction and total FSFI-score (P = 0.002) postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the SPARC-sling procedure for SUI did not negatively interfere with female sexual function.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioMed Research InternationalSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207