Is there any association between nocturia and cognitive frailty risk?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Nocturia, defined as the act of waking to void during the hours of intended sleep, is one of the most frequent and disturbing lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Nocturia and other LUTS, like urinary incontinence, were linked to frailty. Recently, nocturia has been associated with cognitive impairment in older adults. The objective of this study is to evaluate the association between cognitive frailty risk and nocturia. Methods: In this cross-sectional multicentre study conducted in nursing home residents, the association between cognitive frailty risk and nocturia was assessed using logistic regression analysis. Cognitive frailty risk was determined by the CFAI-Plus (Comprehensive Frailty Assessment Instrument) score. Cognitive frailty risk was considered as ‘‘not-to-low’’ if the total score was between 0 and 3.13; ‘‘low-to-medium’’ if the total score was between 4.69 and 9.38; ‘‘medium-to-high’’ if the total score was C 10.94. Nocturia was defined by at least 2 nocturnal awakenings to void, using the ICIQ-F/M LUTS questionnaire (International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire for Male/Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms). Results: A total of 80 participants were included (mean age of 88 ± 7 years, 77% were women). Among the LUTS, nocturia was the most frequent, with 56% of participants affected. The majority of residents (44%) had a low-to-medium risk of cognitive frailty, followed by not-to-low (37%) and then by medium-to-high (19%). In univariate analysis, there was no association between nocturia and cognitive frailty risk. Using not-to-low risk as the reference, the OR (CI 95) for the association between nocturia and low-to-medium risk or medium-to-high risk were of 0.70 (0.26; 1.89) or 1.00 (0.28; 3.54) respectively. Conclusion: In this preliminary study, no statistically significant associations were found between cognitive frailty risk and the presence of nocturia. Nevertheless, this association remains plausible and needs to be assessed with a more appropriate tool and in a population that could be the target of prevention actions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".