MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288010068 · doi:10.2217/cer-2022-0041

A plain language summary of the likelihood of symptom relief for patients taking fesoterodine for overactive bladder

2022· letter· en· W4288010068 on OpenAlexaff
Adrian Wagg, Sender Herschorn, Martin Carlsson, Mireille Fernet, Matthias Oelke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Effectiveness Research · 2022
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsPfizer (Canada)Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOveractive bladderMedicineUrinationAccidentalIntensive care medicineUrologyAlternative medicineUrinary systemInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: . Overactive bladder is a medical condition that causes an urgent need to urinate, which can cause accidental urination. Fesoterodine is a medication used to treat overactive bladder. Because we don't know how likely it is that an individual patient will achieve a level of improvement in their overactive bladder symptoms, researchers analyzed results of 6 studies of patients with overactive bladder who were treated with fesoterodine. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Although complete resolution of all symptoms was rare with fesoterodine treatment, a resolution of accidental urination was more common, which is the most important treatment goal for many patients. After taking fesoterodine, episodes of accidental urination were more likely to be reduced or completely absent than episodes of an urgent need to urinate. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: These results can help patients with overactive bladder understand their own chances of treatment success with fesoterodine and can help doctors support their patients on what to expect regarding their specific symptoms and concerns. ▪Toviaz (fesoterodine) is approved to treat the condition that is discussed in this summary. Approval varies from country to country; please check with your local health provider for more details. ▪This summary reports the combined results of 6 studies. The results of individual studies may vary from the combined study results presented here. Individuals should make treatment decisions based on all available evidence. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT number: NCT01302054, NCT01302067, NCT00444925, NCT00611026, NCT00220363, and NCT00138723.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1230.019

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Effectiveness ResearchSame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207