Clinical and anamnestic characteristics of patients of reproductive age with pelvic floor syndrome descents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a pressing medical and social problem that significantly affects the quality of life of women of reproductive age. According to epidemiological studies, the incidence of this pathology in women under 40 years reaches 15-20%, while there is a tendency for POP to become younger. However, other pelvic floor disorders, such as urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction, are often ignored. All these pathologies are combined into pelvic descent syndrome (PDS). Research into risk factors for PDS development and identification of target groups is necessary for early diagnosis and successful treatment. The aim of the study. To evaluate clinical and anamnestic risk factors for the development of pelvic floor syndrome degradation in women of reproductive age. Study design. A prospective study was conducted. a cohort study that included 88 women of reproductive age (18-49 years). The patients were divided into 2 groups: Group I — women with pelvic descent syndrome (n=58), Group II — control (n=30). Within the framework of this study, an assessment of anthropometric parameters, obstetric and gynecological history and concomitant somatic diseases was carried out. To assess sexual function, was used validated self-administered questionnaire “Female Sexual Function Index” (The Female Sexual Function Index, FSFI). The function of the urinary tract was studied using uroflowmetry. The study was conducted on the TRITON urodynamic system (Laborie Medical Technologies, Canada). Research results. Significant clinical and anamnestic predictors of pelvic descent syndrome are the number of pregnancies more than three, the number of births more than two, the presence of perineal injuries during childbirth, childbirth with a large fetus, obesity. Patients with pelvic descent syndrome have pronounced sexual dysfunction, but do not actively complain about the quality of sexual life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".