MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2401913931

Current role of injectable agents for female stress urinary incontinence.

2001· article· en· W2401913931 on OpenAlexaff
Sender Herschorn

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSiliconeContraindicationUrinary incontinenceSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: The current role of injectable agents in the management for female stress urinary incontinence is reviewed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Published manuscripts for collagen, silicone microparticles, carbon beads, hyaluronic acid dextranomer and two investigational agents were evaluated. RESULTS: While injectable agents were used in the past for pure intrinsic sphincter deficiency there is good evidence that patients with hypermobility respond similarly. Collagen has been the most widely reported agent to date. Comparative studies with surgery have demonstrated inferior efficacy but a recent study showed a similar quality of life outcome. Newer agents have been designed for superior efficacy and durability. However, of the new agents carbon beads was not shown to be superior and the results of randomized trials of silicone microparticles and hyaluronic acid dextranomer compared to collagen have not yet been reported. All currently used agents appear to be very safe. CONCLUSIONS: Injectable agents have been shown to have efficacy in the management of stress incontinence in women and should be readily available as a treatment option. The definite superiority of one agent over another has not yet been established.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207