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

Review of the epidemiology of overactive bladder

2016· review· en· W2416611247 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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