Prevalence of overactive bladder and incontinence in Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS OF STUDY: The main objectives of the study were to measure the prevalence of overactive bladder (OAB) with its sub-types (wet OAB, dry OAB, mixed OAB) in the Canadian population and to assess prevalence variations in according to gender and age. METHODS: The prevalence of OAB in Canada was investigated via a validated, computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) system. The interviews were conducted in two steps: an initial questionnaire evaluating if respondents suffered from OAB, followed by a detailed questionnaire completing the assessment. The final data were weighted according to the census of metropolitan areas and by gender, on the basis of Canadian population statistics. RESULTS: A sample of 3249 adults, aged 35 years and older, was interviewed with the CATI system. Six hundred and three respondents were found to suffer from wet OAB, dry OAB or mixed OAB. The overall prevalence of OAB in this Canadian population was evaluated to be 18.1%. It was lower in men (14.8%) than in women (21.2%). Dry OAB was assessed to be the highest sub-type, with a rate of 13.6%, 11.7% in men and 15.6% in women. The prevalence of wet OAB was estimated to be 2.3%, 2% in men and 2.6% in women. Finally, the prevalence of mixed OAB was found to be 1.2% in this population, with a much lower prevalence in men (0.3%) than in women (2.1%). Dry OAB increased with age in both men and women; wet OAB was markedly higher in both men and women over the age of 75 years. No correlation was observed between age and prevalence of mixed OAB in women, whereas a linear relationship was noted between the two variables in men. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large study of OAB symptoms prevalence in the Canadian population aged 35 years and older. We established that OAB prevalence was higher in women than in men, with women experiencing more dry OAB and mixed OAB than men.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".