MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392618921

Mirabegron in the Treatment of Overactive Bladder: Safety and Efficacy in the Very Elderly Patient

2020· article· en· W4392618921 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Asad Makhani, Miriam Thake, William Gibson

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMirabegronOveractive bladderMedicineUrologySafety profilePharmacologyAdverse effectAlternative medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asad Makhani,1 Miriam Thake,2 William Gibson1 1University of Alberta, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; 2Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Swindon SN3 6BB, UKCorrespondence: William GibsonUniversity of Alberta, Division of Geriatric Medicine, 1-198 Clinical Sciences Building, 11350 83 Ave, Edmonton, Alberta Tel +1 780 248 1969Email wgibson@ualberta.caAbstract: Lower urinary tract symptoms, including urgency, urgency incontinence, frequency, and nocturia, are highly prevalent in older adults and are associated with significant morbidity and impairment in quality of life. When conservative measures such as bladder training fail to improve symptoms, pharmacological management is recommended by national and international guidelines. Mirabegron, an agonist of the β 3 adrenergic receptor, demonstrates similar efficacy to the anticholinergic drugs without the risk of anticholinergic effects, but experience and evidence in the very elderly population are limited. This narrative review examines the current evidence base for mirabegron in very elderly adults.Keywords: overactive bladder, mirabegron, elderly, ageing, anticholinergic, 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.251
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207