Pelvic floor morphometrical and functional changes immediately after pelvic floor muscle training and at 1‐year follow‐up, in older incontinent women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To compare the effects of group-based and individual physiotherapy for stress or mixed urinary incontinence (UI) on pelvic floor morphometry, pelvic floor muscle (PFM) function, and related self-efficacy, immediately after treatment and at 1 year. METHODS: This is a planned secondary analysis of the group rehabilitation or individual physiotherapy study, an assessor-blinded, randomized, noninferiority trial. Eligible participants included 362 community-dwelling older women with symptoms of stress/mixed UI. After learning how to contract PFMs, participants completed 12 weeks of PFM training, either individually (one-on-one) or as part of a group (eight women). Pelvic floor transperineal ultrasound volumes (morphometry), PFM intravaginal dynamometric data (function), and self-efficacy in performing PFM exercises were acquired at baseline, posttreatment, and at 1 year. RESULTS: Groups were comparable at all time points. Immediately posttreatment, both groups demonstrated significant changes in pelvic floor morphometry during coughs, and in PFM function during contractions and coughs. Participants also reported improved self-efficacy in performing PFM exercises. Results were sustained at 1 year. When participants coughed, pelvic floor structures were better supported (reflected by less caudal movement of the puborectalis sling and a smaller opening of the levator hiatus) in a pattern consistent with the "knack" strategy. Furthermore, both interventions resulted in stronger, faster, more coordinated, and more endurant PFMs. CONCLUSION: In older women with stress or mixed UI, both individual and group-based PFM training resulted in comparable improvements in overall PFM function, pelvic floor morphometry during coughs, and related self-efficacy in performing PFM exercises, which were sustained at 1 year.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".