Observations on the function of the female urethra: III: An overview with special reference to the relation between urethral hypermobility and urethral incompetence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To analyze the relation between urethral hypermobility and urethral incompetence, and to summarize the interdependence between maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP), urethral hypermobility, and urethral incompetence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A group of 255 patients was selected from a large bank of cases. Inclusion criteria were age 20 years or above, no neurological disease, stable bladder, and no previous incontinence surgery or hysterectomy. The degree of hypermobility (cysto-urethrocele) and the degree of urethral incompetence (abdominal leak point pressure (ALPP)) were determined. Statistical analyses between urethral hypermobility and incompetence were performed with Spearman's correlation and the Jonckherre-Terpstra test. RESULTS: The Spearman's rank correlation test showed a statistically significant relation between urethral hypermobility and the degree of urethral incompetence (P = 0.0049). CONCLUSIONS: The statistically significant relation between urethral incompetence and hypermobility suggests that urethral incompetence will increase as the degree of urethral hypermobility does. Optimal conditions for urinary continence include a high maximum urethral closure pressure, absence of hypermobility, and a low degree of urethral incompetence. This last factor is assured by a strong support underneath the urethra permitting compression of the latter during straining. Failure of the urethral closure mechanism is highly probable with a diminished maximum closure pressure accompanied by urethral hypermobility often associated with a high degree of urethral incompetence. Clinically significant urinary incontinence may appear in many intermediate circumstances between these two extreme states, but stress urinary incontinence is essentially an activity-related phenomenon.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".