Review of the Impact and Burden of Urinary Urgency on Adults with Overactive Bladder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Overactive bladder (OAB) is a prevalent condition that impairs the quality of life in both men and women, and for many, urgency is the most bothersome symptom. Urgency is thought to drive the presentation of the other symptoms (frequency, nocturia, urgency urinary incontinence [UUI]). However, urgency has been understudied in clinical trials, potentially owing to inherent difficulties in its assessment. The definition of urgency related to OAB has been refined over the years, but it may not be easily understood by patients and clinicians, affecting its use in practice. Variability among the tools to measure urgency further complicates the matter. For example, some measure the frequency of urgency episodes and consider reduction of episode frequency as improvement in urgency severity. Others rate the severity of each episode of urgency along a scale, with some including an accompanying incontinence episode as the most severe form. Reduction in UUI episodes is often a primary endpoint in clinical studies, with many studies requiring UUI—sometimes called OAB‐wet—as an inclusion criterion, yet approximately two‐thirds of those with OAB do not experience UUI. If patients with OAB without UUI (i.e., OAB‐dry) are included, they are often not analyzed separately. Thus, it remains unknown if there are differences in treatment outcomes between patients with and without UUI and whether these differences are driven by pathophysiological processes. This narrative review highlights what is known about the pathophysiology of urgency, how urgency affects individuals with OAB, urgency measurement and associated challenges, and assessment of urgency in clinical trials.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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".