Prevalence and Associated Factors of Fecal Incontinence: A Global Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The global prevalence of fecal incontinence (FI) is likely underestimated with an unmet need to identify associated factors to improve patient care. This study aimed to report the global prevalence of FI and to identify associated factors. METHODS: Data from the internet survey of the cross-sectional Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study, including 26 countries, were used. The prevalence of any FI, defined as any accidental leakage of stool during the last 3 months, and the prevalence of Rome IV FI were evaluated. The association between other bowel and anorectal symptoms and FI was assessed using individual items of the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire. RESULTS: Any FI was reported in 13.8% and Rome IV FI in 1.6%. The prevalence of any FI ranged from 10.9% in Eastern Europe to 19.7% in North America, and Rome IV FI from 0.8% in the Middle East to 3.3% in North America. The prevalence of any FI was higher in males, the elderly, and the obese, with similar patterns in Rome IV FI, except for no sex difference. In multivariable analyses, all bowel and anorectal symptoms were associated with having any FI and Rome IV FI, with urgency, loose stools, and abdominal and rectal pain showing the strongest links. Both any FI and Rome IV FI were associated with a lower quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: FI is common across the globe, but with regional differences. Strong associations with abdominal and rectal pain, as well as diarrhea- and constipation-specific symptoms, suggest a role of both altered stool consistency and visceral hypersensitivity in FI pathophysiology.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".