Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is arbitrary, being based on criteria defined by consensus rather than specific biologic markers. IBS is merely a consortium of symptoms and as presently defined is no more a disease than dyspnea or fatigue are diseases. In this context, it is therefore not surprising that defining the nature of pain has proven elusive. It is often etiologically assumed that the origins of the pain seen in IBS patients are mechanistically distinct from those of some of the other symptoms of IBS such as diarrhea and constipation. In addition pain is assumed to be part of a continuum ranging from complete absence of any pain to varying degrees of discomfort to severe pain. Both of these assumptions should be challenged: there are no data to support the notion that discomfort and pain experienced in IBS are mediated through different pathways than symptoms such as bloating or that they are not merely the consequence of the physiological perturbations associated with altered bowel function. Similarly one can easily argue that visceral pain may actually be the cause rather than the effect of the altered gut function seen in IBS. Abdominal discomfort could then be the consequence of the latter and be only indirectly related to pain. It is likely that central (such as stress) and peripheral factors (such as intestinal infection) will produce similar symptoms but via markedly different pathways. It may be time to deconstruct IBS as a concept and to approach the clinical picture from a mechanistic rather than a phenomenological perspective, particularly if we are interested in understanding the basis of the symptoms and develop effective therapeutic modalities. Our patients deserve no less.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".