MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2469634066 · doi:10.1080/14737167.2016.1203258

Persistence with medication and overactive bladder: an ongoing challenge

2016· review· en· W2469634066 on OpenAlexaff
Adrian Wagg

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOveractive bladderPersistence (discontinuity)DiseaseMedicineIntensive care medicineNarrative reviewAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: For optimum results from pharmacological management of overactive bladder, adherence to prescribed medication is required. Overactive bladder treatment has been compromised by low adherence and persistence to medications, losing many people who might benefit from treatment and exposing them to unnecessary consequences of their disease. AREAS COVERED: This narrative review examines what is known about adherence and persistence with treatment and, drawing evidence from other disease areas suggests factors which might be modifiable to improve the situation. A structured search of PubMed using the terms persistence, adherence, overactive bladder, urgency incontinence, and chronic conditions, was performed and added to as themes from exiting data emerged. Expert commentary: Adherence has traditionally been poor in this disease area with limited understanding of the modifiable factors underlying the observation. Increased understanding of the nature of the underlying disease should allow adoption of strategies tested in other disease areas.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.442 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes ResearchSame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207