Comparison of Electromyographic Evaluation of Pelvic Floor Muscles in Third Trimester Between Pregnant Women With and Without Urinary Incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of the study was to compare the pelvic floor muscle function between pregnant women with and without urinary incontinence, in third trimester. Methods: Fifteen pregnant women with urinary incontinence and 25 pregnant women without urinary incontinence were included in study. The evaluation was conducted in two moments on third trimester: between the 24th and 28th gestational week and between the 34th and 36th gestational week, consisted on electromyographic evaluation of pelvic floor muscles function. Data were tabulated in Excel and statistically analyzed with the Statistica program. A significance level of 5% (P ≤ 0.05) was adopted. Results: The comparison between the groups showed significant difference, in first evaluation, on the mean and peak values of sustained contraction, and pregnant women with urinary incontinence had the worst values of the electrical signal related to these variables. The intragroup comparison, pregnant women with urinary incontinence had, at the end of pregnancy, higher mean values of the pelvic floor muscles electrical activity during maximal voluntary and sustained contractions, and greater peak value during maximal voluntary contraction. Conclusions: Pregnant women with urinary incontinence complaint had worse pelvic floor muscles function, compared to those without complaint. Thus, the pelvic floor muscle function is directly related to continence in pregnant women. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2015;4(4):297-301 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jcgo361w
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".