MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W103035678 · doi:10.1155/2010/894631

Prevalence of Idiopathic Fecal Incontinence in a Community‐Based Sample

2009· article· en· W103035678 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alexandra Ilnyckyj

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFecal incontinenceSample (material)FecesMedicineBiologyGastroenterologyEcologyChemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The epidemiology of fecal incontinence (FI) remains incompletely understood. The use of different interview questions in highly selected populations has resulted in widely varying reported rates. AIM: To define the prevalence of idiopathic FI in a Canadian urban community sample using a validated interview questionnaire. METHODS: Respondents completed a telephone interview regarding bowel health as part of the 2006 Winnipeg Area Study (WAS). The WAS has been conducted annually by the Department of Sociology at the University of Manitoba (Winnipeg, Manitoba) since 1981. The household was the primary sampling unit. An eligible respondent was an individual 18 years of age or older who lived at that address, matched a randomly preassigned sex and provided consent. Respondents were asked whether they had ever been diagnosed by a physician with colon cancer, ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease or irritable bowel syndrome. They were also asked, 'In the past 12 months have you experienced accidental leakage of liquid or solid stool?' Respondents were asked not to consider short-term diarrheal illness. Finally, respondents were asked to rank eight attributes of bowel habit on a 10-point scale. Answers ranking 5 points or greater were defined as having the attribute. RESULTS: In the city of Winnipeg, population 650,000, 1153 households were contacted. Of these, 727 (63%) agreed to participate and formed the study sample. Of the respondents, 361 were men and 366 were women (mean age 47 years). The sociodemographics of these respondents were comparable with those reported in previous WAS samples and the 2001 Canadian census data. Respondent cooperation, high interview quality and willingness for repeat contact were rated by the interviewers at 93%, 89% and 90%, respectively. FI was reported by 3.7% of the sample. There was no difference in sex or age of those reporting FI when compared with the rest of the sample. With physician-diagnosed gastrointestinal conditions removed from the analysis, 2.0% of the sample reported FI. Of the gastrointestinal conditions, only irritable bowel syndrome demonstrated a significant correlation with FI (one-sided X(2) test 11.567, degrees of freedom = 1; P=0.001). Four bowel habit attributes demonstrated strong correlation with FI (P=0.0001 for each t test): admission to any type of bowel accident, inability to delay toileting, inability to control passage of stool and need to wear a pad due to soiling. These four bowel habit attributes were reported (ranked 5 points or greater) by 1.5%, 22%, 2.4% and 1.5% of the sample, respectively. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of idiopathic FI in a well-defined community sample was 2.0%. There was no sex preference and the mean age of affected individuals was 47 years - demographic variables that did not vary among the sample. These findings suggest the need to develop a new paradigm beyond aging and childbirth injury to study the pathophysiology of FI. It is imperative to control for subjects with known irritable bowel syndrome in epidemiological studies because their inclusion in the present analysis doubled the calculated prevalence of FI.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology and HepatologySame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207