MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110090697 · doi:10.5770/cgj.23.423

Do Older Adults with Overactive Bladder Demonstrate Impaired Executive Function Compared to Their Peers Without OAB?

2020· article· en· W3110090697 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
William Gibson, Asad Makhani, Kathleen F. Hunter, Adrian Wagg

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geriatrics Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Geriatrics SocietyPfizer
KeywordsMedicineOveractive bladderGerontologyUrologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geriatrics JournalSame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207