Urinary incontinence and loneliness in Canadian seniors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence (UI), a prevalent condition among seniors, can have substantial impacts on quality of life. DATA AND METHODS: Data from the 2008/2009 Canadian Community Health Survey-Healthy Aging were used to examine the prevalence of UI, as well as the relationship between UI and loneliness in a sample of 16,369 people aged 65 or older. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify significant relationships, while adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: In 2008/2009, an estimated 512,000 seniors reported that they experienced UI. Women were more likely than men to have this complaint (14% versus 9%), as were older seniors. Those with UI were significantly more likely to be lonely than were those without the condition (OR=1.8, 95% CI: 1.5 to 2.0). This association persisted when socio-demographic, social and functional health factors were taken into account (OR=1.5, 95% CI: 1.3 to 1.7). INTERPRETATION: This study highlights the prevalence of UI among Canadian seniors and its correlation with loneliness, which, itself, is associated with negative health outcomes. Further research is needed to establish exactly how UI has an impact on seniors' feelings of loneliness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".