Estimating the number of Canadians suffering from fecal incontinence using pooled prevalence data from meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aim: Fecal incontinence (FI) is defined as the unintended loss of solid or liquid stool. FI adversely affects the patient's quality of life. However, due to stigma, lack of awareness, and underdiagnosis, there is a notable gap in the knowledge regarding its prevalence. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature reporting on FI prevalence and estimate the number of people afflicted by FI. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, using the Embase, MEDLINE, CINHAL, and PubMed databases to identify relevant publications in the English language. Two reviewers independently screened the articles and extracted data. The reference sections and content of the review papers were also evaluated. Thirty-two articles were selected and included. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed using RStudio software. A sub-analysis was conducted to account for the variation between sample population age groups to minimize heterogeneity. The pooled prevalence was extrapolated to the Canadian population and a sample of ten densely populated countries to estimate the number of people affected by FI. Results: The Mean pooled FI prevalence in men and women was 7% (95% CI: 6-9%) and 10% (95% CI: 8-12%), respectively. The sub-analysis mean pooled prevalence of FI in men and women was 8% (95% CI: 6-10%) and 10% (95% CI: 8-12%), respectively. The authors estimate that between 1 and 1.5 million Canadians and 320 to 500 million people in the ten most populous countries suffer from FI. Conclusion: Fecal incontinence is a prevalent underdiagnosed condition requiring appropriate and timely treatment to improve a patient's quality of life.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".