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 OpenAlexfundno aff
Lori Forner, Marie‐Pierre Cyr, Emma Beckman, Paul W. Hodges, Michelle Smith

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
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

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContinenceSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207