The Impact of Nocturia on Falls and Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although nocturia is associated with various comorbidities, its impact on falls and fractures remains unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association between nocturia and falls and fractures as a prognostic and as a causal risk factor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed®, Scopus®, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and abstracts of major urological meetings up to December 31, 2018. We conducted random effects meta-analyses of adjusted relative risks of falls and fractures. We applied the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to rate the quality of evidence for nocturia as a prognostic and causal factor of falls and fractures. RESULTS: =57.5%, annual risk difference 1.2%) for association between nocturia and fractures. Subgroup analyses showed no significant effect modification by age, gender, followup time, nocturia case definition or risk of bias. We rated the quality of evidence for nocturia as a prognostic factor as moderate for falls and low for fractures, and as very low as a cause of falls/fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Nocturia is probably associated with an approximately 1.2-fold increased risk of falls and possibly an approximately 1.3-fold increased risk of fractures.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it