Bowel patterns, gastrointestinal symptoms, and emotional well‐being in adolescents: A cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Bowel patterns are varied in the general population. Gastrointestinal symptoms are common reasons for clinical visits. We aimed to examine the usual bowel pattern and the prevalence and significance of gastrointestinal symptoms in a population-based cohort of Australian adolescents. METHODS: Seventeen-year-old adolescents (n = 1279) in the Western Australian Pregnancy Cohort (Raine) Study participated in a cross-sectional assessment, involving health questionnaires. Questions included medical history, diet, bowel patterns, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Data were analyzed to identify patterns of bowel motions, gastrointestinal symptoms, and factors associated with these in adolescents. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine predictors of poorer self-rated health status. RESULTS: The dominant pattern of bowel motions was passage of stool that was "not too hard and not too soft" (Bristol stool types 3 and 4) in 90% and occurring between three and seven times per week in 74%. The most prevalent gastrointestinal symptoms included abdominal bloating (72%), abdominal pain (36%), nausea (25%), and constipation (20%). A "Western" dietary pattern was associated with abdominal bloating, constipation, and nausea (P < 0.05). Apart from diarrhea, gastrointestinal symptoms were more prevalent in female adolescents than male adolescents (P < 0.05 for all). Female sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16-3.02, P = 0.01), nausea (OR 3.18, 95% CI 2.03-4.98, P < 0.001), and depression (OR 6.68, 95% CI 3.65-12.22, P = 0.03) were independently associated with poorer self-rated health status, after adjusting for other gastrointestinal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: In adolescents, bowel patterns and gastrointestinal symptoms are diverse and show sex differences. Nausea, depression, and female sex are significant factors for poorer self-rated health.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".