Nocturnal Enuresis in Older People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While there is extensive literature regarding nocturnal enuresis in children and young adults, relatively little research explores this problem in older people. This scoping review sought to identify knowledge gaps and provide research direction specifically for older, institutionalized adults with nocturnal enuresis. A comprehensive search of 8 electronic databases and the gray literature was undertaken. Studies focusing on the causes, symptoms, and treatment of nocturnal enuresis in older people were retrieved. A broad search strategy including all adults was employed in order to capture all relevant publications. Articles were then excluded by title and abstract such that only those relevant to the older adult and institutionalized populations remained. Relevant articles were identified by title and language. Further reading of the abstract allowed inclusion and a final full reading of the articles allowed all authors to map research activity and identify knowledge gaps. After duplicates and nonrelevant articles were eliminated, we identified 7 articles on nursing home residents and 2 involving older people living in psychiatric institutions. Published literature focused on causes and treatment with either desmopressin or aversive behavioral therapy. No study included a comprehensive continence assessment or controlled for comorbid conditions. Identified gray literature focused on general continence information for the public and nonspecialist clinicians. We conclude that there is a dearth of evidence relevant to this troublesome condition. Gaps in the evidence base include a lack of standardized terminology and limited research focusing on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment of nocturnal enuresis, all of which suggest a rich research agenda for future investigation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".