Treatment with rivastigmine or galantamine and risk of urinary incontinence: results from a Dutch database study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD) with cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) may increase the risk of urinary incontinence (UI). OBJECTIVE: To assess whether ChEI use was associated with the risk of UI among older patients with AD. METHODS: A crossover cohort study using the PHARMO Record Linkage System included 10 years of data on drug dispensing histories for over two million Dutch residents. Included patients were aged 50 +, free of UI for the last 6 months, received a first ChEI prescription during the study period, had at least 12 months prior drug exposure history and one subsequent prescription of any drug. UI was defined as a first dispensing of a urinary spasmolytic or of incontinence products for at least 30 days. Cox regression with time-varying covariates and multivariate adjustment allowed assessing whether UI incidence was associated with ChEI exposure. RESULTS: Among 3154 patients there were 657 UI cases during a mean follow-up of 5.1 years before a first ChEI dispensing, and 499 cases after ChEI initiation, during a mean follow-up of 2.0 years. Among the 2700 participants free of UI one year before ChEI initiation, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for UI was 1.13 (95% CI: 0.97-1.32) when periods with ChEI use were compared to periods without ChEI use. Sensitivity analyses may suggest an increased risk in the 1(st) month after ChEI initiation (HR: 1.72, p = 0.09) CONCLUSION: Worsening AD may increase incidence of UI, but no firm association between ChEI treatment and risk of UI could be shown from these data.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".