MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157821909 · doi:10.1177/1049732303256410

Postpartum Flatal and Fecal Incontinence Quality-of-Life Scale: A Disease- and Population-Specific Measure

2003· article· en· W2157821909 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah J. Cockell, Tina Oates-Johnson, Donna Gilmour, Michael Vallis, Geoffrey K. Turnbull

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie UniversityLakeridge HealthSt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFecal incontinenceQuality of life (healthcare)Scale (ratio)Context (archaeology)PopulationMedicineAnal sphincterQualitative researchVaginal deliveryPhysical therapyPsychologyGynecologyFamily medicineClinical psychologyGerontologyObstetricsNursingSurgeryPregnancyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using various recruiting methods, the authors identified 10 women who suffer from flatal and/or fecal incontinence subsequent to one or more previous vaginal deliveries. Each of these women participated in an individual in-depth 1-hour interview assessing symptom frequency, severity, and impact on quality of life. Participants also completed the Fecal Incontinence Quality-of-Life Scale and evaluated how well this scale captured their experiences. The authors used qualitative analyses to generate themes from the interviews and modified the existing scale, adding new items and themes to capture this population's particular symptom experience. This scale is being evaluated in the context of a surgical clinical trial comparing two techniques for repairing anal sphincter lacerations from delivery.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.282
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations23
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207