Review: behavioural interventions plus laxatives are effective for defaecation disorders, but biofeedback does not add benefit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(2002) Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1, CD002240; Brazzelli M, Griffiths P. . Behavioural and cognitive interventions with or without other treatments for defaecation disorders in children . . . ;( . ): . (latest version 1 Jul 2001). . [OpenUrl][1] QUESTION: In children with defaecation disorders, are behavioural modification (B-mod) techniques and cognitive therapies more effective than conventional treatments? Studies were identified by searching 12 databases (including the Cochrane Incontinence Group Trials Register and the Enuresis Resource and Information Centre Register) in March 2001, scanning reference lists, and contacting experts. Studies were selected if they were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of cognitive, behavioural, or cognitive and behavioural interventions in children with a history of faecal soiling with or without constipation. The quality of studies was assessed. Data were extracted on participant characteristics, interventions, and outcomes. 14 studies (12 randomised controlled trials, 843 children) met the selection criteria. Children had encopresis (ie, inappropriate passage of stool in children > 4 y of age) in 12 studies and faecal incontinence resulting from congenital abnormalities in 2 studies. Study duration ranged … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCochrane%2BDatabase%2BSyst%2BRev%26rft.volume%253D1%26rft.spage%253DCD002240%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".