The Impact of Anticholinergic Use for Overactive Bladder on Cognitive Changes in Adults with Normal Cognition, Mild Cognitive Impairment, or Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: ε4 gene increases this risk. Objective: To determine whether OAB AC use is associated with a clinically relevant change in cognitive measures among adults with normal and abnormal cognition. Design setting and participants: ε4 status, and confounding neurologic diagnoses were excluded. New users of an OAB AC were matched 1:1 to patients not taking an OAB AC using propensity scores. Intervention: New use of oxybutynin, tolterodine, solifenacin, trospium, darifenacin, or fesoterodine. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: ε4 effect modification. Results and limitations: = 0.06). Limitations include the inability to determine medication dose or duration, and residual confounding. Conclusions: OAB AC use was not associated with a significant change in cognitive function among individuals with normal and abnormal cognition. Further research is necessary to determine if oxybutynin and tolterodine are significantly more likely to cause cognitive decline. Patient summary: Use of a specific class of overactive bladder medication was not associated with negative changes in brain function among patients with either normal or abnormal function. A genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's disease did not predispose individuals to cognitive decline when taking these drugs. Two of the drugs (oxybutynin and tolterodine) may lead to a higher risk of cognitive decline in comparison to other drugs, and this needs further research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".