From stigma to the spotlight: A need for patient-centred incontinence care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Incontinence is not a single disorder but a family of related conditions with different etiologies and treatments; it is a chronic disability that carries an enormous stigma. In few disorder/treatment pairings, there is the need to reinvent care more urgent and clear than in the area of incontinence. Patient-centred care has been realized to improve outcomes, quality of care, and patient satisfaction while concurrently reducing healthcare costs. To improve continence care and move it away from "cleaning up accidents" to a patient-centred care model, in which the disorder is managed to best practice guidelines, does not require investigative or developmental prowess but a simple, concentrated effort to diffuse existing knowledge to close the knowledge gaps, both at the clinical language level for clinical nurses and family physicians, as the gatekeepers to specialist care, and in simplified layperson's language for the healthcare worker, family carer, and person living with incontinence.
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 | 0.061 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.040 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.072 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 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".