Promoting continence in older people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of urinary incontinence (UI) is strongly associated with increasing age. Twenty five percent of women over 80 years of age have clinically significant symptoms in population surveys, but prevalence is as high as 70% in older hospital in-patients and residents of care homes with nursing. UI substantially affects quality of life and well-being, and generates significant economic burden for health and social care. Sadly, UI is considered as taboo by society, leading to isolation, depression and reluctance to seek help. As with all aspects of care of older people, a multi-modal approach to assessment and management is needed. Key to effective management of incontinence is recognition. As a minimum, clinicians should actively ask patients about continence, especially in older adults living with frailty. Careful evaluation and establishment of any underpinning diagnosis and aetiological factors requires comprehensive, multimodal, usually multidisciplinary, assessment. A lack of awareness of the problem and what can be done about it exists in both laypeople and clinicians, this needs correcting. An interdisciplinary approach to research and management must be the way into the future.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".