Anal Resting Pressures at Manometry Correlate with the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index and with Presence of Sphincter Defects on Ultrasound
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We describe the relationship between anorectal manometry, fecal incontinence severity, and findings at endoanal ultrasound. METHODS: A total of 351 women completed the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, underwent anorectal manometry, and endoanal ultrasound. Severity index and manometry pressures in 203 women with intact sphincters on ultrasound were compared with pressures in 148 women with sphincter defects. Relationships between resting and squeeze pressures, severity index, and size of sphincter defects were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean severity index in patients with and without sphincter defect was 35.7 vs. 36.7 (not significant). Worsening index correlated with worsening mean and maximum resting pressure (P < 0.0001). Differences were observed in mean and maximum resting pressure between the patients with and without sphincter defects (26.6 vs. 37.2, P < 0.0001; 39.4 vs. 51.7, P < 0.001). Resting pressures correlated with the sizes of defect (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with and without sphincter defects had similar severity scores, but patients with defects had a significant decrease in resting pressures. Patients with larger sphincter defects had lower severity scores and resting pressures. Until a manometry cutoff can be set to discriminate between absence and presence of defects, both manometry and ultrasound should be offered to patients with history of anal trauma.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".