Urinary urgency acts as a source of divided attention leading to changes in gait in older adults with overactive bladder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: There is a well-recognised but unexplained association between lower urinary tract symptoms including urgency and urgency incontinence and falls in older people. It has been hypothesised that urinary urgency acts as a source of divided attention, leading to gait changes which increase falls risk. This study aimed to assess whether urinary urgency acts as a source of divided attention in older adults with overactive bladder (OAB). METHODS: 27 community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and over with a clinical diagnosis of OAB underwent 3-Dimensional Instrumented Gait Analysis under three conditions; bladder empty, when experiencing urgency, and when being distracted by the n-back test. Temporal-spatial gait and kinematic gait data were compared between each condition using repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: Gait velocity decreased from 1.1ms-1 in the bladder empty condition to 1.0ms-1 with urgency and 0.9ms-1 with distraction (p = 0.008 and p<0.001 respectively). Stride length also decreased, from 1.2m to 1.1m with urgency and 1.0m with distraction (p<0.001 for both). The presence of detrusor overactivity did not influence these results (p = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: In older adults with OAB, urinary urgency induced similar changes in gait to those caused by a distracting task. These gait changes are associated with increased fall risk. This may be part of the explanation for the association between falls and lower urinary tract symptoms in older people. Future research should examine the effect of pharmacological treatment of OAB on gait and on the effect of dual-task training on gait when experiencing urgency.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".