Does pelvic floor morphometry change in women with pelvic organ prolapse after a short period of supine lying?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advice for women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) often includes lying down to decrease the effects of gravity on the pelvic floor. The aim of this study was to compare pelvic floor morphometry before and after 30 min of supine lying in women with symptomatic POP. Pelvic floor morphometry was assessed in vaginally parous, premenopausal women with symptomatic POP ≥ stage 1. The modified Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system was used in supine to assess points Ba (anterior vaginal wall), Bp (posterior vaginal wall), and C (cervix). Transperineal ultrasound imaging was used in supine and standing to assess the following measures at rest and bearing down: bladder neck position, bladder position, rectal ampulla position, levator plate angle, anorectal angle, levator anteroposterior distance, and levator hiatal area. Measures taken before and after 30 min of supine lying were compared. Twenty-one women (median (range) age: 39 (29–50) years) with varied stages of POP (33% stage 1, 57% stage 2, and 10% stage 3) were included. Most measures of pelvic floor morphometry were unchanged after 30 min of supine lying compared to before lying. Participants had greater resting levator hiatal area in supine and levator anteroposterior distance at rest and bearing down in supine after lying down (p ≤ 0.001), suggesting reduced pelvic floor muscle activity. Findings suggest that a 30-min period of supine lying does not improve support of the pelvic organs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".