Bowel function and care: Guidelines for the care of people with spina bifida
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Bowel dysfunction, such as constipation and fecal incontinence, has a significant impact on health, activities of daily living, and quality of life among people with spina bifida. Secondary complications may result from bowel dysfunction and include urologic dysfunction, loss of skin integrity, shunt (hydrocephalus) function, as well as loss of social opportunities and employability. METHODS: Using a consensus building methodology, the guidelines for management of bowel dysfunction in spina bifida were written by experts in the field of spina bifida and bowel function and care. RESULTS: The evidence-based guidelines are presented in table format and provide age-specific recommendations to achieve fecal continence without constipation. Recommended treatments are presented from least to most invasive options. Literature supporting the recommendations and the interval research published to date is also presented. CONCLUSION: These guidelines present a standardized approach to management of bowel dysfunction in spina bifida. Bowel management in children and young adults with spina bifida is limited by variability in clinical practice and paucity of robust research in neurogenic bowel. Collaborative multi-institutional efforts are needed to overcome research barriers and provide innovative solutions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".