General and bladder‐related quality of life: A focus on women living with spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare bladder symptoms, and urinary and overall quality of life (QOL) among women and men after Spinal cord injury (SCI), and to describe specific aspects of QOL among women with SCI. METHODS: We used data from a prospective, multi-center, and cross-sectional study that was carried out from May 2019 to September 2020. Clinical and demographic details were obtained and participants completed two patient reported outcomes: the neurogenic bladder symptoms score-short form (NBSS-SF, which measures bladder symptoms and QOL) and the SF-12 (which measures overall physical and mental health QOL). RESULTS: Our cohort included 135 women and 210 men with SCI. Among the women, the median age was 50, and 40% had a cervical SCI. For general QOL, women with SCI had physical functioning scores similar to men, but lower mental health scores on the SF-12 (46.85 vs. 49.76, p = 0.01). Women had significantly worse overall NBSS (10.76 vs. 9.08, p < 0.001) and NBSS continence domain scores (4.71 vs. 3.66, p < 0.001) compared to men. There were significant differences between overall QOL measures, and bladder symptoms based on bladder management techniques among the women. NBSS-SF symptom scores were better among women who used overactive bladder medications compared to women who did not (8.43 vs. 11.9, p = 0.02) and NBSS-SF QOL domain scores were significantly better among women who underwent surgery and those that used overactive bladder medications. CONCLUSIONS: Women have more bladder symptoms (specifically incontinence) compared to men. Symptom burden and overall QOL vary among women who use different bladder management techniques and treatments.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".