Urethral Diameter at the Time of Birth and Its Implication on Urinary Incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Throughout life, many women develop urinary incontinence (UI), and vaginal birth has been implicated as one of the causes of this pathology, once it may cause damages to the pelvic floor and to the continence mechanism. The aim was to compare urethral diameter between primiparous women after vaginal birth and women after elective cesarean section, without previous vaginal birth, correlating these measurements with factors related to pregnancy and childbirth and with presence of UI within 6 months of childbirth. Methods: Urethral diameter was measured in the immediate postpartum period (up to 2 days) by transperineal ultrasound at the level of the bladder neck and mid urethra. The data were collected on pregnancy and birth. Six months after childbirth, the participants were assessed for the presence of UI. Results: Of 151 women, 73 delivered vaginally (group 1) and 78 had a cesarean section (group 2). Urethral diameter at the level of the bladder neck was significantly smaller in group 2 (P ≤ 0.0001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in urethral diameter at the mid urethra (P = 0.505). Only urethral diameter at the mid urethra was inversely correlated with UI at 6 months (P = 0.014). There was a positive correlation between presence of UI during pregnancy and at 6 months after childbirth (r s = 0.214, P = 0.016). Conclusions: A significant difference was observed in the urethral diameter at the bladder neck according to the mode of birth. A positive correlation was also found between presence of UI during pregnancy and at 6 months postpartum. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2020;9(4):102-107 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcgo705
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".