Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent data has demonstrated a one in five lifetime risk of a woman requiring stress urinary incontinence (SUI) surgery. Currently, most women opt for a synthetic midurethral sling (MUS), with over 3.6 million placed worldwide. This article attempts to identify whether a gold standard exists with regards to surgical correction of female SUI. When considering which sling type to use for which incontinent woman, the published data demonstrates excellent results for both synthetic mesh (retropubic or transobturator routes) and fascial pubovaginal slings for most patients. Intrinsic sphincter deficiency does appear to be better treated with the use of a retropubic approach, although still with less than stellar results. With little to differentiate, the treatment of most female SUI may be solely based on which sling the surgeon feels most comfortable performing. Currently, most urologists and gynecologists favour synthetic MUS over fascial slings in surgical-naïve patients; however, recent U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warnings concerning the use of mesh in transvaginal surgery have patients questioning the safety of synthetic MUS for the treatment of SUI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.007 |
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".