An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for the conservative and nonpharmacological management of female pelvic floor dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis There has been an increasing need for the terminology on the conservative management of female pelvic floor dysfunction to be collated in a clinically based consensus report. Methods This Report combines the input of members and elected nominees of the Standardization and Terminology Committees of two International Organizations, the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) and the International Continence Society (ICS), assisted at intervals by many external referees. An extensive process of nine rounds of internal and external review was developed to exhaustively examine each definition, with decision-making by collective opinion (consensus). Before opening up for comments on the webpages of ICS and IUGA, five experts from physiotherapy, neurology, urology, urogynecology, and nursing were invited to comment on the paper. Results A Terminology Report on the conservative management of female pelvic floor dysfunction, encompassing over 200 separate definitions, has been developed. It is clinically based, with the most common symptoms, signs, assessments, diagnoses, and treatments defined. Clarity and ease of use have been key aims to make it interpretable by practitioners and trainees in all the different specialty groups involved in female pelvic floor dysfunction. Ongoing review is not only anticipated, but will be required to keep the document updated and as widely acceptable as possible. Conclusion A consensus-based terminology report for the conservative management of female pelvic floor dysfunction has been produced, aimed at being a significant aid to clinical practice and a stimulus for research.
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 | 0.086 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".