Do we need better information to advise women with stress incontinence on their choice of surgery? Report from the ICI‐RS 2018
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The regulatory warnings about the safety of the synthetic midurethral slings (MUS) had a significant effect on how patients and physicians approach surgical management of stress urinary incontinence (SUI). In this changing landscape, the purpose of this research Think Tank (TT) was to provide an update of the current knowledge about the safety and efficacy of SUI surgery, to review patient goals and expectations and to identify factors affecting the decision making for surgery. METHODS: This is a consensus report of the proceedings of TT3: "Do we need better information to advise women with stress incontinence on their choice of surgery?" from the annual International Consultation on Incontinence-Research Society (ICI-RS), June 2018. RESULTS: Despite the body of evidence supporting the continued use of MUS, the short follow-up of most of the studies and the lack of "real life" data regarding pain and sexual dysfunction make the development of recommendations challenging. Women with SUI are often happy to "trade" efficacy for a procedure with less associated morbidity and therefore it is not always the procedure with the highest success rate that is ultimately chosen. However, a number of factors influence treatment decision and there is limited evidence about what level of all these factors women are willing to tolerate for a given success rate, or how much success they are willing to trade for a lower complication rate. CONCLUSIONS: The ICI-RS proposed research questions which may be able to assist in improving the counseling and management of women with 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 | 0.024 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".