Pelvic Floor Health in Women with Parkinson’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Urinary dysfunction and constipation, manifestations of pelvic floor dysfunction are common sources of disability and impaired quality of life in women with Parkinson's disease (PD). OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the pelvic floor health amongst women with PD and their reporting of bladder and bowel symptoms. METHODS: We surveyed women with PD and age-matched controls about pelvic floor health using validated questionnaires. All participants completed the Pelvic Floor Disability Index (PFDI-20), the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7) and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) short form version 2.0 Cognitive Function 8a. Additionally, PD patients underwent the Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) scale and the Montreal Cognition Assessment (MoCA). RESULTS: Women with PD (n = 59; age, 70.4±8.6 years, PROMIS cognitive score, 52.0±7.8) self-reported urinary symptoms to a greater extent than controls (n = 59; age, 70.2±8.7 years, PROMIS cognitive score, 51.0±10) (68% vs 43%, p < 0.01). The difference was mirrored by higher (worse) scores on both PFDI-20 (35.4 vs 15.6; p = 0.01) and PFIQ-7 (4.8 vs 0; p < 0.01) for PD women compared to controls. Only 63% of all participants with self-reported pelvic floor symptoms had previously reported these symptoms to a health care provider. There was no difference in utilization of specialty care between the two groups (30% vs 46%, p = 0.2). CONCLUSION: Pelvic floor dysfunction, more common amongst women with PD, is underreported and undertreated. Our study identifies a key gap in care of women with PD.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".