The association between lower urinary tract symptoms and falls: Forming a theoretical model for a research agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a well-recognised association between falls and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in older adults, with estimates of odd ratios for falls in the presence of LUTS ranging between 1.5 and 2.3. Falls and LUTS are both highly prevalent among older people and both are markers of frailty, with significant associated morbidity, mortality, and healthcare resource cost. This association is not well examined or explained in the literature. AIMS: We aimed to outline current knowledge of the association between falls and lower urinary tract symptoms and suggest a research program to further investigate this. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consensus conference of experts in the field was convened to review the current literature and brainstorm potential future investigative avenues. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Despite the recognition of this association, there has been little research to examine its potential causes, and no intervention trial has established if reducing LUTS or urinary incontinence can reduce the risk of falls. The commonly held assumption that urgency causes falls through rushing to the toilet is likely incorrect. Falls and LUTS are both symptoms of frailty and have many common causes. Gait, balance, and continence are all processes requiring cognitive input, and the concept of dual tasking may be a further link. CONCLUSION: The significant association between lower urinary tract symptoms and falls is currently unexplained, and further research into the potential causes of this association is needed.
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 | 0.024 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".