Toilet training started during the first year of life: a report on elimination signals, stool toileting refusal and completion age.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to examine an international population of children who started toilet training in the first year of life. METHODS: Two hundred eighty-six participants completed an anonymous questionnaire. Main outcomes variables were: presence of elimination signals (ES), elimination pattern consistency (EPC), stool toileting refusal (STR), and toilet training completion age. The analysis included the differences in completion age regarding each of the following variables: start age range, presence of ES, EPC, STR and country of residency for those who completed either bowel or bladder training at the time of survey completion. RESULTS: Over 90% of the respondents reported that their children showed ES. STR was nearly 12%. For those who completed toilet training at the time of survey completion mean completion ages for daytime dryness and bowel control were 17.4 and 15.0 months, respectively; those who initiated toilet training during the first 6 months completed training earlier than those who started later; those who showed STR at the beginning of training completed bowel training later than those who did not (P<0.001); those who exhibited ES for voiding or bowel movements completed day-dryness and bowel training earlier than those who did not (P<0.001). Among countries of residency, those children who resided in the USA and Canada completed bowel training the earliest (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: This is the first report which provides data on the current infant toilet training method, which is based mainly on ES and patterns, and practiced by motivated caregivers. Notable side effects were not observed.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".