Is there “brain OAB” and how can we recognize it? International Consultation on Incontinence‐Research Society (ICI‐RS) 2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: In light of mounting evidence supporting the association of brain regions with the control of urine storage and voiding, the high placebo effect in OAB studies as well as certain anecdotal observations from clinical practice with OAB patients, the role of the brain in OAB was explored. METHODS: At the ICI-RS 2017 meeting, a panel of Functional Urologists and Basic Scientists presented literature data generating a proposal to discuss whether there is "brain OAB" and how we could recognize it. RESULTS: Existing data point toward organic brain causes of OAB, in particular concerning white matter disease (WMD) and aging, but with currently speculative mechanisms. Imaging techniques have revealed connectivity changes between brain regions which may explain brain-peripheral interactions in OAB patients, further to acknowledged structural and functional changes in the central nervous system (CNS). Furthermore, psychological disorders like stress and depression have been identified as causes of OAB, with animal and human studies proposing a neurochemical and neuroendocrine pathophysiological basis, involving either the serotoninergic system or the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. Finally, childhood data suggest that OAB could be a developmental disorder involving the CNS, although childhood OAB could be a different condition than that of adults in many children. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should aim to identify the pathogenesis of WMD and the aging processes affecting the brain and the bladder, with possible benefits in prevention strategies, as well as connectivity disorders within the CNS, the pathophysiology of OAB in childhood and the neurochemical pathways connecting affective disorders with OAB.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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".