Relationship Between Back Pain and Urinary Incontinence in the Canadian Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Back problems and urinary incontinence (UI) have been found to co-occur more frequently than would be predicted by chance. Objective: The aim of this study was to estimate the associations between UI and back problems in the Canadian men and women. Design: This was an observational, cross-sectional study. Methods: The 2011-2012 Statistics Canada Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) provided the data. The CCHS surveyed 125,645 adults, providing a representative sample of the Canadian population. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to quantify the strength of the associations among the variables. Results: Having UI increased the risk of also having back problems in both men (OR = 2.45; 95% CI = 2.06-2.91) and women (OR = 2.97; 95% CI = 2.64-3.35) compared with not experiencing UI. Among those participants with UI, men and women were at equal risk of experiencing back problems. Limitations: The CCHS data are cross-sectional and self-reported, which prevents determining causality and carries a risk of response bias. Also, various diagnoses were grouped under the back problems and UI categories, which makes it difficult to propose possible explanations for this pattern of comorbidity. Conclusions: This study provides firm evidence to support clinically observed associations between UI and back problems. The strength of the associations was essentially equal in men and women. These findings reinforce the importance of screening for these frequently coincident conditions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".