Do Older Adults with Overactive Bladder Demonstrate Impaired Executive Function Compared to Their Peers Without OAB?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Maintaining urinary continence is not an automatic process, but relies on continuous processing of sensory signals from the bladder and suppression of the desire to void. Urinary incontinence (UI) and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), including urinary urgency, frequency, and nocturia are highly prevalent among the general population. This prevalence rises in association with increasing age, and this may be in part due to changes in the central nervous system rather than the urinary tract. The aim of this study was to assess if older adults with overactive bladder (OAB) had demonstrable impairment in executive function. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study comparing the performance of adults aged 65 and over with and without OAB on two cognitive tests, the Trail Making Test B (TMT-B) and simple reaction time (SRT). OAB was defined as urgency, with at least weekly urgency incontinence and a daytime urinary frequency of 8 or more. The control group were defined as a Bladder control Self-Assessment Questionnaire (B-SAQ) score of ≤4. RESULTS: = .003). There was no difference in the SRT. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of older adults, OAB was associated with measurable slower performance on the TMT-B, suggesting that impaired executive function is associated with OAB.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".