A biomechanical model to assess the contribution of pelvic musculature weakness to the development of stress urinary incontinence
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A biomechanical model of the female pelvic support system was developed to explore the contribution of pelvic floor muscle defect to the development of stress urinary incontinence (SUI). From a pool of 135 patients, clinical data of 26 patients with pelvic muscular defect were used in modelling. The model was employed to estimate the parameters that describe the stiffness properties of the vaginal wall and ligament tissues for individual patients. The parameters were then implemented into the model to evaluate for each patient the impact of pelvic muscular defect on the vaginal apex support and the bladder neck support, a factor that relates to the onset of SUI. For the modelling analysis, the compromise of pelvic muscular support was demonstrated to contribute to vaginal apex prolapse and bladder neck prolapse, a condition commonly seen in SUI patients, while simulated conditions of restored muscular support were shown to help re-establish both vaginal apex and bladder neck supports. The findings illustrate the significance of pelvic muscle strength to vaginal support and urinary continence; therefore, the clinical recommendation of pelvic muscle strengthening, such as Kegel exercises, has been shown to be an effective treatment for patients with SUI symptoms.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it