Overactive bladder: the importance of tailoring treatment to the individual patient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harold P DrutzDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Ontario, CanadaOn behalf of the Specialist Advisory Group on OAB (Lake Como, Italy, June 2009)Introduction: Overactive bladder (OAB) is a prevalent and persistent condition that is often under-diagnosed and under-treated, and which frequently requires tailored treatment for successful management.Methods: This consensus opinion-based review summarizes the discussions of a group of experts in the field of OAB that were assembled to evaluate the importance of correct diagnosis and appropriate pharmacotherapy in patients with OAB.Results: A thorough diagnostic process is crucial for allowing exclusion of underlying medical issues and differentiation from genitourinary conditions other than OAB. In addition, selecting the most appropriate pharmacotherapy needs to be carefully considered in the context of each patient with OAB. In general, patients with OAB tend to be older with various comorbidities and often receiving multiple concomitant medications. Treatment decisions should take into consideration the differing potential for antimuscarinic medications to alter cognitive and cardiovascular functions, both of which may be compromised in this patient population.Conclusion: Tailoring treatment to individual patients by comprehensive patient assessment may lead to more effective management of patients with OAB, especially those receiving polypharmacy for comorbidities.Keywords: overactive bladder, diagnosis, antimuscarinics, cognitive function, cardiovascular
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 | 0.012 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".