MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560234099 · doi:10.1002/nau.23107

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

2016· article· en· W2560234099 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

VenueNeurourology and Urodynamics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersInternational Urogynecological Association
KeywordsMedicineTerminologyPelvic floorAssociation (psychology)Physical therapyPelvic floor dysfunctionConservative managementConservative treatmentPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.266 · 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