MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055437892 · doi:10.1097/mcg.0b013e31815146f9

Further Characterization of Painful Constipation (PC)

2008· article· en· W2055437892 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas A. Drossman, Carolyn Morris, Yuming Hu, Jane Leserman, Christine B. Dalton, Brenda B. Toner, Nicolas Diamante, Shrikant I. Bangdiwala

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Gastroenterology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsMedicineConstipationVisual analogue scaleIrritable bowel syndromePhysical therapyInternal medicineDefecation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There has been some question about the classification of painful constipation (PC) and its relationship to irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and in particular IBS with constipation (IBS-C). We sought to: (1) compare PC with IBS and its subtypes (IBS-C, IBS-D, and IBS-A) in terms of pain scores, stool habit and clinical features, and to determine which factors predict PC over IBS, (2) determine the variation in pain and stool habit for PC relative to IBS over time, and (3) compare whether there are clinical differences between those with high pain constipation (HPC) and low pain constipation (LPC) over time. METHODS: Among 231 women in an National Institutes of Health trial, Rome II moderate to severe PC (n=41), IBS-A (n=55), IBS-C (n=80), and IBS-D (n=55) received diary cards on stool frequency, consistency, and pain (visual analog scale) daily for 14 days before and after 12-week treatment and at 3-month intervals for 1 year. PC was characterized into HPC (high pain) and LPC (low pain) groups based on visual analog scale pain scores (high pain > or = 50 and low pain < 50) at baseline. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and comparisons performed by chi2 for categorical and t tests for continuous variables. Regressions and repeated measures tested between group and within-group associations, respectively. RESULTS: (a) PC is different from IBS with: higher pain scores (P=0.002), lower education (P=0.02), greater healthcare use and surgeries (P=0.05 to 0.003), and poorer daily function (Sickness Impact Profile overall P=0.004), (b) PC is similar to IBS-C and IBS-A but different from IBS-D for stool frequency and consistency (P<0.0001), bloating (P=0.02), laxative/antidiarrheal use (P=0.04 and 0.02), and lower education (P=0.02). (c) Over 1 year, PC: maintained higher pain scores than IBS, had stool frequencies less than IBS-D and between IBS-C and IBS-A, had stool consistency less than IBS-D and similar to IBS-A, (d) for HPC and LPC there was no difference in constipation, and HPC switched to LPC over time, while LPC pain scores stayed low. Limitations include the absence of a painless constipation group, and that studying moderate to severe symptoms, which may not represent all with PC or IBS. CONCLUSIONS: PC is clinically similar in stool pattern and bloating to IBS-C and IBS-A, but with greater pain, healthcare utilization, and poorer daily function. The findings also suggest that PC defines a population where there is greater pain, and poorer health status and daily function, which may be driven more by visceral and/or central pain dysregulation more than the constipation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical GastroenterologySame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207