Assessment of Involuntary PFM Contractions in Comparison with Existing Literature and IUGA/ICS Terminology Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Involuntary pelvic floor muscle (PFM) contractions are thought to occur during an increase in intra-abdominal pressure (IAP). Although no studies have assessed their presence in women with normal pelvic floor (PF) function, existing literature links the absence of involuntary PFM contractions to various PF dysfunctions. This study rectifies this lacuna by evaluating involuntary PFM contractions during IAP in healthy nulliparous women with no PF dysfunction, using visual observation and vaginal palpation. Results were compared with the literature and the IUGA/ICS Terminology Reports. METHODS: Nulliparous (n=149) women performed three sets of three maximal coughs. Visual observation and vaginal palpation were conducted in the standing and supine positions. The women were not instructed to contract their PFMs. Occurrence rates were calculated for each assessment method and position; differences between positions were analyzed using the Chi-squared test. RESULTS: Rates of occurrence of involuntary PFM contraction were low across both assessments and positions (5-17%). Significant differences were found between standing (5%) and supine (15%) positions for visual observation, but not vaginal palpation (15%, 17% respectively). Occurrence rates also differed compared with the literature and terminology reports. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to clinical expectations, rates of occurrence of involuntary PFM contraction among our cohort of nulliparous women were extremely low. Digital palpation results showed high agreement with the terminology reports, but only partial agreement was observed for the visual observation results. Our study underscores the need for more research aimed at defining normal involuntary PF functions, a review of our understanding of involuntary PFM contractions, and better standardized guidelines for involuntary PFM assessment methods.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".