MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A healthy bladder: a consensus statement

2011· article· en· W2162020391 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Clinical Practice · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNIH Clinical CenterAllerganAstellas PharmaYork UniversityUniversity of PennsylvaniaHorizon PharmaWorld Health OrganizationPfizerU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsMedicineStatement (logic)MEDLINEConsensus conferenceMedical physicsInternal medicineEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A panel of experts in urology, urogynecology, nursing, and behavioral therapy convened in 2010 to discuss the importance of a healthy bladder on overall health. They determined that a consensus statement was necessary to raise awareness among the general public, healthcare providers, payors, and policymakers, with the goals of minimizing the impact of poor bladder health and stimulating primary prevention of bladder conditions. In this statement, 'healthy' bladder function is described, as well as internal and external factors that influence bladder health. It is suggested that primary prevention strategies should be aimed at providing education regarding normal lower urinary tract structures and functioning to the public, including patients and healthcare providers. This education may promote the achievement of optimal bladder health by increasing healthy bladder habits and behaviors, awareness of risk factors, healthcare seeking, and clinician engagement and reducing stigma and other barriers to treatment. Promoting optimal bladder health may reduce the personal, societal and economic impact of bladder conditions, including anxiety and depression and costs associated with conditions or diseases and their treatment. While adopting healthy bladder habits and behaviors and behaviors may improve or maintain bladder health, it is important to recognize that certain symptoms may indicate the presence of conditions that require medical attention; many bladder conditions are treatable with a range of options for most bladder conditions. Lastly, the authors propose clinical directives based on persuasive and convergent research to improve and maintain bladder health. The authors hope that this statement will lead to promotion and achievement of optimal bladder health, which may improve overall health and help minimize the effects of bladder conditions on the public, healthcare professionals, educators, employers, and payors. The advisors are in consensus regarding the recommendations for improving and maintaining bladder health presented herein.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.307
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it