MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023404978 · doi:10.4137/cgast.s10550

Linaclotide: A New Option for the Treatment of Irritable Bowel syndrome with Constipation and Chronic Idiopathic Constipation in Adults

2013· review· en· W2023404978 on OpenAlexaff
Colleen H. Parker, Yuhong Yuan, Louis Wing Cheong Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Medicine Insights Gastroenterology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrritable bowel syndromeMedicineGastroenterologyInternal medicineConstipationChronic constipationCystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulatorLubiprostoneCystic fibrosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic idiopathic constipation (CC) and irritable bowel syndrome with predominant constipation (IBS-C) are the 2 most common conditions among functional gastrointestinal disorders. Despite current multiple therapeutic options, treatment remains challenging and dissatisfactory to many patients. Linaclotide is a novel therapeutic agent, which is a guanylate cyclase receptor agonist that stimulates water secretion from the intestinal epithelium by promoting chloride and bicarbonate efflux into the lumen through activation of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator. Clinical trials have demonstrated that linaclotide is effective, safe and well tolerated in patients with CC and IBS-C. This review article highlights the mechanism of action of linaclotide, reviews published literature based on a search of databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), up to February 2013, and compares its utility with other currently available agents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Medicine Insights GastroenterologySame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207