Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The choice of endpoints is crucial for proper evaluation of agents in clinical trials of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). In a recently published draft guidance for IBS from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), urgency was not considered an appropriate primary endpoint. The FDA's position is that it is not clear how patients with diarrhea-predominant IBS (D-IBS) "define or describe urgency". The aims of this study were to evaluate the association of urgency with stool frequency and consistency in patients with D-IBS and to describe results from patient interviews on their understanding of the term urgency. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of clinical trial data in patients with D-IBS was conducted. Analyses focused on the relationship of urgency to stool frequency and consistency. Interviews were conducted with patients with D-IBS to test their understanding of the term urgency. RESULTS: On the days that patients reported urgency, as compared to the days that patients did not report urgency, they had more frequent bowel movements (3.9 versus 1.8) and looser stools (Bristol Stool Score: 5.4 versus 4.2). The differences for both parameters, evaluated on the days with or without urgency, were statistically significant. In patient interviews, patients with D-IBS had a clear understanding of the concept and terminology of urgency and considered it one of their two most bothersome symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Urgency should be considered a suitable co-primary endpoint in D-IBS studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".