Bladder bowel dysfunction scoring system (BBDSS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We sought to evaluate the reliability and validity of a new, illustrated questionnaire, the bladder bowel dysfunction symptom score (BBDSS) in the assessment of overactive bladder (OAB) and bladder bowel dysfunction (BBD). METHODS: The BBDSS questionnaire consisted of 12 structured questions. This pilot study was designed with two principal groups of questions: one group to assess bladder symptoms and the other to assess bowel dysfunction during the preceding month. Each question had three possible answers, with each answer being assigned a severity score. We prospectively collected previously untreated patients referred to our voiding dysfunction clinic for the first time. A control group of healthy children was recruited to assess the reliability of the BBDSS questionnaire. The provisional diagnosis was collected from patients' charts at the time of presentation. RESULTS: The questionnaire was administered to 92 children (44 in the affected group and 48 in the control group). The age at presentation was similar in both groups (17 months or nine years, nine months). The mean total score for the affected group was 8.7 (3-14) while it was 1.19 (0-5) for the control group (p<0.001). There was a strong correlation, between the total BBDSS score and both groups (r=0.88, p<0.001). Using the ROC curve, the BBDSS was found to be an excellent tool in differentiating normal from affected patients (area under the curve [AUC]=0.98, p<0.001). When the total BBDSS score was ≥6, the positive predictive value was 1, with a negative predictive value of 0.89. The defecation part of the BBDSS was a good tool in differentiating OAB from BBD patients (AUC=0.89, p<0.001). No patient with OAB had a bowel score >3. CONCLUSIONS: The BBDSS is a reliable and valid instrument in the diagnosis of voiding dysfunction. The questionnaire was easily administered by parents or children. Moreover, it can differentiate between OAB and BBD.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".