MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403118642 · doi:10.1016/j.cont.2024.101708

Comparison of pelvic floor morphometry in supine and standing in women with and without pelvic organ prolapse: A cross-sectional exploratory study

2024· article· en· W4403118642 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueContinence · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNational Health and Medical Research CouncilQueensland Cyber Infrastructure Foundation
KeywordsSupine positionMedicinePelvic floorCross-sectional studySurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) and gravity may both challenge pelvic organ support and contribute to the development or worsening of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). This study aimed to assess whether pelvic floor morphometry differs between supine and standing positions in women with and without POP, at rest and with elevated IAP, and to compare the change in measures from the supine to standing position between groups. Thirty premenopausal vaginally parous women with ( n = 15 ) and without ( n = 15 ) POP were included. Transperineal ultrasound was used to assess pelvic floor morphometry (bladder neck [BN], rectal ampulla [RA], levator plate angle [LPA], anorectal angle [ARA], levator anteroposterior distance [LAP], and levator hiatal area [LHA]) in supine and standing, at rest and bearing down. Measures were compared between positions (supine and standing) and groups (women with and without POP). At rest, BN and RA were lower and LPA was smaller in standing than supine for all participants (all p < 0 . 04 ), and LHA and LAP distance were greater in standing than supine for women with POP ( p < 0 . 001 ). In standing rest, BN and RA were lower and LHA was greater in women with than without POP ( p < 0 . 001 ). There were no differences between women with and without POP in these measures in supine (all p > 0 . 23 ). ARA was greater in women with POP than without POP in both positions at rest ( p = 0 . 002 ). During bearing down, BN and RA were lower, ARA and LPA were smaller, and LHA and LAP distance were larger in standing than in supine for all participants (all p < 0 . 023 ). In bearing down in both positions, BN and RA were lower and ARA and LHA were greater in women with than without POP (all p = 0 . 013 ). Our findings indicate lower pelvic floor support in women with POP compared to women without POP that is evident during bearing down in supine, and at rest and during bearing down in standing. These findings underscore the utility of transperineal ultrasound to assess pelvic floor morphometry in standing to guide management of women with POP.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.649

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.313 · 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