Are stress and mixed urinary incontinence associated with impaired executive control in community-dwelling older women?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether stress or mixed urinary incontinence (UI) is associated with deficits in executive functioning among community-dwelling women. DESIGN: An observational study comparing the performance, using multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) and Bonferroni post hoc test, of continent women and women with stress or mixed UI during executive control tasks. SETTING: The research center of the Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Montréal. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and fifty-five community-dwelling women aged 60 and older participated in the study. MEASUREMENTS: Based on the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI), participants were split into three groups: 35 continent women, 43 women with stress UI, and 78 women with mixed UI. Participants completed a battery of neuropsychological tests and a computerized dual-task test. RESULTS: Women with mixed UI showed poorer performances than continent and stress UI women in executive control functions. Deficits were specific to tests involving switching and sharing/dividing attention between two tasks. CONCLUSION: Results of this study suggest that mixed UI can be associated with executive control deficits in community-dwelling older women. Future intervention studies in the treatment of UI should take the higher risk of an executive control deficit in women with UI under consideration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".