MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404244629 · doi:10.1002/nau.25624

LUTS in Older Adults: Definitions, Comorbidity Impact, Patient Priorities, and Treatment Strategies for Managing Daytime and/or Nighttime Symptoms ‐ ICI‐RS 2024

2024· review· en· W4404244629 on OpenAlexaff
Andries Van Huele, Karel Everaert, William Gibson, Adrian Wagg, Paul Abrams, Alan J. Wein, Wendy Bower

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurourology and Urodynamics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineComorbidityDaytimeGerontologyPhysical therapyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are prevalent among older adults, a population that faces multiple medical challenges, with frailty being a major concern. Despite the high prevalence of LUTS, current treatment strategies for older adults are often inadequate. This paper aims to address these issues by defining daytime and/or nighttime LUTS and examining the impact of comorbid conditions on these symptoms. We will identify the priorities of older patients regarding LUTS management and propose treatment strategies to improve outcomes in this vulnerable population. METHODS: This review is based on discussions at the ICI-RS 2024 meeting in Bristol, UK, alongside an extensive literature review examining LUTS in older adults. The review explores distinctions between daytime and nighttime symptoms, the impact of frailty, patient priorities, treatment strategies and the role of comorbidities. RESULTS: LUTS in older adults present a complex and multifaceted challenge, with notable differences between daytime and nighttime manifestations, which may coexist. Clear definitions are needed. There is a lack of evidence that treating associated comorbidities will improve LUTS or urinary incontinence. Personalized care approaches, integrated into broader geriatric health strategies, are essential for addressing these symptoms. An ideal treatment strategy is proposed, focusing on daytime, nighttime or combined day- and nighttime LUTS. Further research is needed to refine treatment pathways and optimize outcomes for this population. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive, individualized approach is necessary to address LUTS in older adults. Future research should focus on refining diagnostic definitions, exploring the interplay between comorbidities and LUTS, and developing patient-centered treatment strategies that account for both daytime and nighttime (or combined) symptoms.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurourology and UrodynamicsSame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207