Is Visceral Hypersensitivity Correlated With Symptom Severity in Children With Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abdominal pain related to irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and functional abdominal pain (FAP) is frequent in children and can be of variable severity. Both IBS and FAP are associated with rectal hypersensitivity. We hypothesized that in children with IBS and FAP, the rectal sensory threshold for pain (RSTP) is associated with symptom severity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 47 patients (34 girls; median age, 14.2 years) with IBS (n = 29) and FAP (n = 18), according to the Rome II criteria, underwent a rectal barostat examination to determine their RSTP. Gastrointestinal symptom severity was assessed by validated questionnaires. During the rectal barostat exam, symptoms were documented using a visual analog scale and by measuring the area coloured on a human body diagram corresponding to painful sensations. RESULTS: The median RSTP was 16 mmHg and was similar in IBS and FAP patients. Eighty-three percent of the patients had rectal hypersensitivity (RSTP < or = 30.8 mmHg, the 5th percentile of control children studied in our laboratory). Fifty-one percent and 36%, respectively, reported missing school and social activities at least once per week. Increased frequency of pain, missed days of school, missed social activities, and pain during the barostat examination were not associated with lower RSTP values in either the whole group or in the subset of children with rectal hypersensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Rectal hypersensitivity is not proportional to the severity of symptoms in children with IBS and FAP, indicating that symptom severity is influenced by other factors in addition to visceral hypersensitivity.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".