MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980756058 · doi:10.1002/eat.20822

Nocturnal enuresis in adolescents with anorexia nervosa: Prevalence, potential causes, and pathophysiology

2010· article· en· W1980756058 on OpenAlexaff
Nuray Kanbur, Leora Pinhas, Armando J. Lorenzo, Walid A. Farhat, Christoph Licht, Debra K. Katzman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Eating Disorders · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnuresisUrinary incontinenceAnorexia nervosaMedicinePediatricsPopulationPsychiatryEating disordersUrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and potential causes of secondary nocturnal enuresis (NE) in adolescents with anorexia nervosa (AN). METHOD: Adolescents with AN completed the Incontinence Symptom Index-Pediatric (ISI-P), a self-report urinary incontinence survey. Those who had NE associated with the onset of AN on the ISI-P completed a comprehensive clinical and laboratory evaluation, including urinary flow measurements. RESULTS: The prevalence of NE in adolescents with AN was 17.0% (10 of 59). The overall frequency of day- and night-time urinary incontinence symptoms in adolescents with AN was 62.7%; urgency incontinence, 57.6%; stress incontinence, 32.2%; and insensate incontinence, 17.0%. Nine of the 10 adolescents with NE had secondary NE and confirmed that bedwetting ceased after weight restoration. DISCUSSION: Decreased functional bladder capacity and detrusor instability may contribute to the NE observed in this population. The high prevalence of NE in adolescents with AN warrants further study to determine the potential causative pathways. Clinicians who work with adolescents with AN should assess for this problem.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations21
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Eating DisordersSame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207