MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2416611247 · doi:10.2147/rru.s102441

Review of the epidemiology of overactive bladder

2016· review· en· W2416611247 on OpenAlexaff
Renu Eapen, Sidney B. Radomski

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch and Reports in Urology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOveractive bladderMedicineEpidemiologyQuality of life (healthcare)HyperplasiaIncidence (geometry)UrologyGynecologyInternal medicinePathologyAlternative medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Overactive bladder (OAB) is common in both men and women. It is a symptom complex that causes significant detriment to quality of life in patients. Although the prevalence of OAB is similar in both sexes, there are sex-specific differences in individual symptoms and the impact on quality of life. The coexistence of benign prostatic hyperplasia with OAB can worsen quality of life in men. This review examines the major studies that looked at the epidemiology of OAB as it relates to both sexes. It focuses on both the overall prevalence rates and the incidence of individual symptoms. This paper also addresses the level of bother and quality of life in men and women with OAB. In addition, the relationship between OAB and benign prostatic hyperplasia is reviewed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations159
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch and Reports in UrologySame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207