Reliability, validity, and gender differences in the quality of life index of the SEAPI‐QMM incontinence classification system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate reliability and validity of the SEAPI-QMM 15-item quality of life index and assess differences between male and female patients with urinary incontinence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twice pre- and once post-treatment, 315 patients (102 men, 213 women) with incontinence and 35 without incontinence completed the self-directed SEAPI-QMM quality of life index. A voiding diary reported frequency of incontinence episodes with number of pads or type of protection used daily for incontinence. In 30%, the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) was administered to further validate the measure. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the index was 0.91. Domain-specific alpha coefficients ranged from 0.88 to 0.73. Test-retest reliability scores at 5 days gave a reliability coefficient of 0.93. Split half reliability was 0.89. Correlation of the index with the NHP was 0.78 for women, 0.72 for men. Mean scores before and after treatment with medical or surgical management were significantly different in both genders and were sensitive to the presence or absence of use of protection and the type of protection chosen in men. Men with incontinence (61%) reported a high level of impact in the sexuality domain compared to 7% of women. CONCLUSIONS: The SEAPI quality of life index has a high degree of reliability relating to stability and internal consistency across a wide age range in both genders. There are differences between men and women in life domains most frequently affected by urinary incontinence.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".