Prevalence and Risk Factors for Bladder and Bowel Dysfunction in Children With Type 1 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Urologic complications, including urinary incontinence and urinary tract infections are commonly observed in the adult population with type 1 diabetes (T1D); however, there remains a paucity of data on the prevalence, associated risk factors and impact of bowel and bladder dysfunction (BBD) in the pediatric T1D population. Aim: This study aims to examine the prevalence of BBD in children with T1D compared to healthy pediatric controls and to explore clinical factors associated with childhood BBD. Methods: This cross‐sectional, noninterventional, multicenter survey study involved children with TID and healthy controls aged 5–16 years across North America. Participants and their caregivers completed the Vancouver Symptom Score (VSS) to assess bowel and bladder symptoms. BBD was defined as a total VSS score of 11 or greater. Logistic regression was used to identify potential factors associated with BBD and bother with symptoms. Results: In a group of 242 participants with T1D and 86 controls, 46% were male, and the median age was 11.0 years. The prevalence of BBD was found to be higher in participants with T1D at 21.5%, compared to 10.5% in controls. While irritative symptoms were most commonly reported in the T1D group with BBD, urinary incontinence caused the most bother. In the T1D group, poorer glycemic control was linked to a greater likelihood of BBD, while male sex and more severe symptomatology (such as urinary incontinence) were associated with greater bother related to these symptoms. Conclusion: There is a high prevalence of BBD in children with T1D compared to healthy controls. These data highlight the need for early identification and intervention for BBD in T1D. Proactive measures, such as routine screening and comprehensive T1D management with strict attention to glycemic control, are crucial to address the significant burden of BBD and improve overall health outcomes for children with T1D and their families.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".