Quality of Life in Women With Urinary Tract Infections: Is Benign Disease a Misnomer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to undertake an exploratory evaluation of quality-of-life indicators for women suffering from urinary tract infections. METHODS: The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0 (SF-36) was administered to 47 women with a diagnosed urinary tract infection who were being cared for in the Family Medicine Center, Student Health Services, or Urology Outpatient Clinic. A control population of 71 women was obtained from the female members of an undergraduate geography class, a community basketball league, and a local women's choir. RESULTS: All subsections of the SF-36 quality-of-life indices were significantly decreased in the subject population compared with the control population (lower score indicates lower quality of life): patient general health perception (63.3 vs 78.9, P < .001) physical functioning (76.6 vs 87.6, P = .012), role limitation owing to physical health (53.8 vs 93.0, P < .001) and emotional health (67.4 vs 88.3, P < .001), vitality (43.0 vs 64.9, P < .001), emotional well-being (64.4 vs 80.2, P < .001), pain (58.7 vs 91.5, P < .001), and social functioning (60.4 vs 90.4. P < .001). CONCLUSION: Suffering from an urinary tract infection has a detrimental influence on patient quality of life. The effect of urinary tract infections on women and their perception of quality of life have not been hitherto reported in the medical literature. The significant findings in this study call into question whether acute, non-life-threatening illness should be regarded as benign.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".