Systematic review and meta-analysis on the association of metabolic syndrome in women with overactive bladder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine the association of metabolic syndrome (METS) in women with and without overactive bladder (OAB).Methods PRISMA guidelines were followed and the protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42024606398). We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and LILACS databases to obtain relevant articles for studies reporting METS outcomes related to OAB published through October 2024. A meta-analysis was performed of available studies using random effect models. Results are reported as mean difference (MD), standardized MD (SMD), or odds ratio (OR) and their 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was described with the I2 statistic. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.Results Of the 108 non-duplicated retrieved citations, after successive selection, four case-control studies with low or moderate risk of bias reported information about the association of METS in women assessed with the 8-item OAB Symptom Bother Scale. OAB patients displayed higher body mass index (BMI, MD: 3.27, 95% CI: 2.12, 4.43), waist circumference (MD: 7.96, 95% CI: 4.41, 11.52), fasting blood glucose (SMD: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.18, 2.34), triglycerides (SMD: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.47), and LDL-cholesterol (SMD: 0.30, 95%CI: 0.06, 0.54) levels. In addition to low HDL-cholesterol levels (SMD: −0.40, 95% CI: −0.74, −0.06) compared to the control group. There were no significant differences in circulating total cholesterol levels and rates of hypertension, hysterectomy, postmenopausal status, and constipation in women with and without OAB.Conclusion Women with OAB display associations with age, BMI, waist circumference, and METS factors.
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 | 0.019 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".