Incontinence in frail elderly persons: Report of the 6th International Consultation on Incontinence
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
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guidelines for the management of frail older persons with urinary incontinence are rare. Those produced by the International Consultation on Incontinence represent an authoritative set of recommendations spanning all aspects of management. AIMS: To summarize the available evidence relating to the management of urinary incontinence in frail older people published since the 5th International Consultation on Incontinence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A series of systematic reviews and evidence updates were performed by members of the working group to update the 2012 recommendations. RESULTS: Along with the revision of the treatment algorithm and accompanying text, there have been significant advances in several areas of the management of lower urinary tract symptoms in frail older people. DISCUSSION: The committee continues to note the relative paucity of data concerning frail older persons and draw attention to knowledge gaps and research opportunities. Clinicians treating older people with lower urinary tract symptoms should use the available evidence from studies of older people combined with careful extrapolation of those data from younger subjects. Due consideration to an individual's frailty and wishes is crucial.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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