Bowel and Bladder Dysfunction after SCI: A Comparison between India and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The inclusion of people living with spinal cord injury (SCI) in research has allowed for an informed understanding of priorities of recovery of which bowel dysfunction and bladder dysfunction have been continuously identified. Research has also demonstrated the global disparities in SCI outcomes particularly when comparing high- and low-income countries. Currently, there is a lack of direct comparison between countries when assessing SCI outcomes. Objectives: This is an exploratory study to better understand bowel and bladder dysfunction amongst individuals with SCI in India and Canada. Methods: Data from 33 participants were analyzed. Participants completed an online questionnaire assessing demographic information and the Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction (NBD) score, Wexner score, Neurogenic Bladder Symptom Score (NBSS), and the Incontinence Quality of Life Instrument (I-QOL). Continuous data were compared using t tests. For not normally distributed data, the independent Mann-Whitney U test was used. Categorical variables were evaluated for association using Fisher’s exact or chi-square test, depending on the sample size. Results: Independent Mann-Whitney U test demonstrated that the Canadian participants had poorer bowel function with higher total NBD scores ( p = .007) and less frequent bowel movements ( p = .036), and they were more likely to experience uneasiness, headaches, and perspiration during bowel movements ( p < .001). NBSS results indicated a small but significantly higher proportion of the Indian participants were unsatisfied or unhappy with their bladder function ( p = .049). The distribution of Wexner and I-QOL scores were the same across countries. Conclusion: Potential explanations for differences include lifestyle, management, financial resources, patient and caregiver education, and societal pressures, which are all heavily influenced by cultural, geographical, and economic circumstances.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".