MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625475122 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.4634

Pelvic organ prolapse: A primer for urologists

2017· review· en· W2625475122 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
M Bureau, Kevin Carlson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntroitusUrinary incontinencePelvic floor dysfunctionOveractive bladderPelvic floorVaginal Vault ProlapsePelvic Floor MuscleGeneral surgerySurgeryGynecologyVaginaAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) results from weakness or injury of the pelvic floor supports with resulting descent of one or more vaginal compartments (anterior, apical and/or posterior). Women typically become symptomatic from the bulging vaginal wall or related organ dysfunction once this descent reaches the introitus. POP is a common condition, affecting more than half of adult women. Many women presenting to an urologist for stress urinary incontinence or overactive bladder will have associated POP; therefore, it is important for urologists who treat these conditions to be familiar with its diagnosis and management. While POP is part of the core urology training curriculum in some jurisdictions, it is not in Canada.1 This article reviews the diagnosis of POP, including pertinent symptoms to query in the history, important facets of a systematic pelvic examination, and the appropriate use of ancillary tests. Treatment options are also discussed, including conservative measures, pessaries, and various reconstructive and obliterative techniques.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations28
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207