Avaliacao de mulheres com incontinencia urinaria de acordo com a Classificacao Internacional de Funcionalidade, Incapacidade e Saude - CIF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Urinary incontinence highlights any involuntary loss of urine, requiring an encompassing or biopsychosocial assessment of patients, the ICF offers a simplified and objective assessment of human functions and their restrictions. Aims: To use an ICF to assess women diagnosed with UI. Method: Descriptive cross-sectional study developed with women with urinary incontinence. Physical evaluation, and through an interview composed of personal data and quality of life questionnaires. Results: Ten women diagnosed with UI were evaluated and 70% had symptoms of urgency. In the physical evaluation, an average grade 3 strength of the pelvic floor was observed. And in relation to the assessment of quality of life through the instruments I-QOL and KHQ, a greater impact was observed on the psychosocial factor, social limitations, personal relationships and on the index of emotions. Conclusion: The assessment based on the ICF adds information on functionality, limitations and psychosocial impact, allows the preparation of a more specific treatment for women with urinary incontinence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".