MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

OUTCOME IN CHILDREN UNDER 5 YEARS OF AGE WITH CONSTIPATION: A PROSPECTIVE FOLLOW‐UP STUDY

2000· article· en· W182171707 on OpenAlexaff
Noha Elshimy, B. L. Gallagher, Diane West, MD Stringer, JWL Puntis

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Clinical Practice · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsChild, Adolescent and Family Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConstipationPsychosocialPediatricsLaxativeSuspectDistressProspective cohort studyEl NiñoCohortCohort studyPsychiatrySurgeryClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Constipation in the pre-school child is common and causes considerable distress to children and their parents. There is a lack of information regarding prognosis in this group of patients although some are clearly at risk of developing long-term difficulties with defaecation. We have previously reported characteristics of children under 5 years of age referred to hospital over a one-year period with idiopathic constipation. We now report outcome data after 18 months of follow-up in 41 of the original cohort of 42 children. We have also summarised what we regard as good practice in managing constipation in this age group. Eighteen months after initial outpatient assessment, the symptoms of constipation were reported to have resolved in 36 (88%), although seven of these were still needing regular laxative treatment. It was our subjective impression that the five children who apparently did not improve came from families that had a greater degree of psychosocial problems and where compliance with treatment was suspect. This study shows that with simple treatment measures and ongoing support, an optimistic prognosis can be given to families from the outset. The minority of pre-school children who do not improve may benefit from a more intensive psychological approach to management.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Clinical PracticeSame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207