A prospective, multicenter, international study to explore the effect of three different amplitude settings in female subjects with urinary urge incontinence receiving interstim therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of sub-sensory amplitude settings of sacral neuromodulation therapy on overactive bladder symptoms in subjects with urinary urge incontinence. METHODS: Subjects who qualified for a neurostimulator device implant were randomized to one of three amplitude settings (50% of sensory threshold [ST], 80% of ST, and ST). Subjects completed urinary voiding diaries (3-day), International consultation on incontinence modular questionnaire-overactive bladder symptoms quality of life questionnaire, and patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) to assess change in voiding symptoms and quality of life (QoL) from baseline through 12 weeks. RESULTS: Forty-eight subjects had a successful test stimulation, 46 were implanted with a neurostimulator device and 43 completed the 12-week follow-up visit. The change from baseline to 12 weeks is -3.0 urinary incontinence (UI) episodes/day (95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.4 to -1.7) for the 50% of sensory threshold group, -2.9 UI episodes/day (95% CI: -4.7 to -1.2) for 80% of sensory threshold group, and -3.6 UI episodes/day (95% CI: -5.2 to -1.9) for the sensory threshold group. In each randomized group, improvements were observed in health-related QoL, its subscales, and symptom interference. Subjects across all three randomization groups reported on the PGI-I that their bladder condition was better at 12 weeks compared to before they were treated with InterStim therapy. CONCLUSION: These findings provide insights into possible advancements in the postimplantation phase of therapy with potential for improved patient comfort and increased device longevity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".