MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Probiotics and Functional Abdominal Bloating

2004· review· en· W2058417908 on OpenAlexaff
M. Di Stefano, E. Miceli, Elia Armellini, Antonio Missanelli, Gino Roberto Corazza

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Gastroenterology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity Hospital Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBloatingTegaserodRifaximinGastroenterologyInternal medicinePlaceboAbdominal painIrritable bowel syndromeAntibioticsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Functional abdominal bloating is a condition dominated by a feeling of abdominal fullness or bloating and without sufficient criteria for another functional gastrointestinal disorder. The currently used therapeutic approaches aim to reduce the volume of intestinal gas, thus increasing intestinal gas elimination or reducing its production. Some promising results have been obtained by the use of prokinetics, such as tegaserod and Prostigmine, and by the use of nonabsorbable antibiotics, such as rifaximin. Another therapeutic approach is represented by the administration of probiotics to modify the composition of colonic flora and thus the production of intestinal gas. The authors recently studied the effect of LGG, which proved to be more effective than placebo in reducing the severity of symptoms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.927

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations17
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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