Abdominal pain localization is associated with non‐diarrheic Rome <scp>III</scp> functional gastrointestinal disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abdominal pain is common in patients with functional bowel disorders (FBDs). The aim of this study was to characterize the predominant sites of abdominal pain associated with FBD subtypes, as defined by the Rome III criteria. METHODS: A total of 584 consecutive patients attending FBD consultations in a tertiary center participated in the study. Stool form, abdominal pain location (nine abdominal segments), and pain intensity (10-point Likert scale) during the previous week were recorded. Logistic regression analysis was used to characterize the association of abdominal pain sites with specific FBD subtypes. KEY RESULTS: FBDs were associated with predominant pain sites. Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) with constipation was associated with pain in the left flank and patients were less likely to report pain in the right hypochondrium. Patients with functional constipation reported pain in the right hypochondrium and were less likely to report pain in the left flank and left iliac site. IBS with alternating constipation and diarrhea was associated with pain in the right flank, and unsubtyped IBS with pain in the hypogastrium Patients with functional abdominal pain syndrome reported the lower right flank as predominant pain site. Patients with unspecified FBDs were least likely to report pain in the hypogastrium. Patients with functional diarrhea, IBS with diarrhea, or functional bloating did not report specific pain sites. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: The results from this study provide the basis for developing new criteria allowing for the identification of homogeneous groups of patients with non-diarrheic FBDs based on characteristic sites of pain.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".