CGS 38th Annual Scientific Meeting Advances in Care: From the Individual to the Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: For many women urinary incontinence is seen as a normal part of growing older.In a recent study, 68.5% older community dwelling Canadian women felt this to be so but if incontinent were no less likely to seek treatment than women who did not hold this belief.The aim of this descriptive study was to explore other health related factors associated with holding this belief.Methods: This was a secondary analysis of baseline data collected as part of a CIHR funded randomised controlled trial which evaluated whether continence promotion and self-management improved Health Related Quality of Life in community dwelling older women. Results:The sample included 4446 women, mean (SD) age 78.23 (8.99) and mean (SD) BMI of 26.55 (5.55).Women who felt incontinence was normal for aging were older (77.4v 78,3, p=0.04), had a higher BMI (25.6v 26.3, p=0.03), reported lower levels of general health and energy, were more likely to report limitations in their daily activities and reported a higher frequency of feeling downhearted. Discussion:The belief that incontinence is a normal consequence of aging appears to be related to lower reported levels of health and physical activity in older women.As such this belief may be held as an additional facet of "unhealthy aging" for these older women, or may reflect an overall pessimistic outlook on life or acceptance of consequence of comorbid conditions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.088 | 0.024 |
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".