Determining the optimal pelvic floor muscle training regimen for women with 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
Pelvic floor muscle (PFM) training has received Level-A evidence rating in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women, based on meta-analysis of numerous randomized control trials (RCTs) and is recommended in many published guidelines. However, the actual regimen of PFM training used varies widely in these RCTs. Hence, to date, the optimal PFM training regimen for achieving continence remains unknown and the following questions persist: how often should women attend PFM training sessions and how many contractions should they perform for maximal effect? Is a regimen of strengthening exercises better than a motor control strategy or functional retraining? Is it better to administer a PFM training regimen to an individual or are group sessions equally effective, or better? Which is better, PFM training by itself or in combination with biofeedback, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, and/or vaginal cones? Should we use improvement or cure as the ultimate outcome to determine which regimen is the best? The questions are endless. As a starting point in our endeavour to identify optimal PFM training regimens, the aim of this study is (a) to review the present evidence in terms of the effectiveness of different PFM training regimens in women with SUI and (b) to discuss the current literature on PFM dysfunction in SUI women, including the up-to-date evidence on skeletal muscle training theory and other factors known to impact on women's participation in and adherence to PFM training.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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