One in four women with stress urinary incontinence who are taught “the knack” maneuver adopt this motor pattern while coughing: A prospective interventional cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
QUESTIONS: Do women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) who receive instruction to perform the knack maneuver as part of a 12-week pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) program perform it during voluntary coughing without specific instruction to do so, and are subjective and objective outcomes better among those who do than among those who do not demonstrate the knack during voluntary coughing? DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a prospective interventional cohort. PARTICIPANTS: Women with SUI. INTERVENTION: 12-week PFMT intervention including instruction to perform the knack. OUTCOME MEASURES: Performance of the knack before a voluntary cough as confirmed through ultrasound imaging. SUI severity determined subjectively (International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire-Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms [ICIQ-FLUTS] overall score, ICIQ-FLUTS UI subscale score, 3-day bladder diary) and objectively (30-min pad test). RESULTS: Outcome data were available from 69 participants. At baseline, no participants performed the knack when asked to cough. At follow-up, more participants performed the knack during a voluntary cough [18/69 (26%), 95% confidence interval [CI] 15%-35%] than at baseline. The extent of improvement in SUI symptoms was not different between participants who did and did not demonstrate the knack during a voluntary cough [FLUTS-UI subscale score (d = 0.31, 95% CI -0.78 to 2.77, n = 69), FLUTS overall score (d = 0.26, 95% CI -1.52-4.23, n = 69), 30-min pad test (d = 0.03, 95% CI -9.35 to 10.32, n = 69), 3-day bladder diary (d = 0.03, 95% CI -4.07 to 3.60, n = 51)]. CONCLUSION: Approximately one in four women appear to adopt the knack as a motor response to a cough command, however, adopting the knack was not independently associated with greater improvements in SUI.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".