Bibliographic record
Abstract
Overactive bladder (OAB) is a symptom complex consisting of urge urinary incontinence, urgency, and frequency. Although the prevalence of this condition has not yet been well defined, a recent study suggests that OAB affects approximately 16.0% of men and 16.9% of women in the United States.1 The total US economic cost of OAB was approximately $12.02 billion in 2000.2 As the population continues to age, the prevalence of OAB, as well as its associated costs, is expected to rise. OAB can be debilitating to those suffering with the disorder, affecting their quality of life, sleep patterns, and mental health.1 However, only a small proportion of persons with this condition receive medical treatment for their symptoms. In addition, the pharmacologic agents used to treat OAB are often limited by issues of efficacy and tolerability. Although clinical trial data support the efficacy of antimuscarinic therapy for OAB, many patients discontinue treatment because of unacceptable side effects, most notably, dry mouth. The availability of extendedrelease formulations has improved the treatment of OAB by offering once-a-day dosing with a reduced side-effect profile. In addition, transdermal OAB therapy is now available that appears to provide efficacy similar to that of the extendedrelease formulations with an even lower incidence of adverse events. In August 2003, a roundtable meeting was held in Montreal to discuss the current and future treatment strategies for OAB. This supplement is based on the presentations and discussions that took place at that event. Paramount to providing OAB patients with improved treatment options is an understanding of the pathophysiology underlying the condition. Although the exact mechanisms responsible for the development of OAB have yet to be fully elucidated, much progress has been made. Naoki Yoshimura, MD, PhD, and Michael B. Chancellor, MD, begin this supplement with an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding the neurophysiology of lower urinary tract function and dysfunction. In addition, they discuss how our widening understanding of neurourology can be translated into novel drug targets for the treatment of OAB. Roger R. Dmochowski, MD, follows with an overview of the treatment options currently available for patients with OAB. In addition, Dr Dmochowski discusses the therapeutic implication of data from recent OAB clinical trials, emphasizing the benefit of combined pharmacologic and behavioral therapy to maximize patient outcomes. Scott MacDiarmid, MD, then discusses the surgical and pharmacologic management of mixed incontinence. He presents the data supporting the use of antimuscarinic agents for the treatment of this condition and describes factors that may influence patient response to both surgical and pharmacologic therapies. David R. Staskin, MD, focuses on the principles behind transdermal therapy for OAB. He provides an overview of the different transdermal systems available and explains the advantages of this method of drug delivery. Victor W. Nitti, MD, then discusses the practical issues behind the use of transdermal OAB therapy. He describes the transdermal system currently available, namely, oxybutyinin TDS, and discusses possible improvements for this delivery system. Rodney A. Appell, MD, concludes the supplement with a review of specific OAB patient populations, including pediatric, geriatric, and pregnant patients; men with prostatitic obstructions; and patients in whom OAB is of neurogenic origin. He discusses the unique issues regarding the use of antimuscarinic agents in these defined populations. I hope that you find this supplement informative and useful. With the development of new therapies, as well as methods with which to deliver them, we can continue to improve OAB treatment for this underserved patient population.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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".