Visceral hypersensitivity and intolerance symptoms in lactose malabsorption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lactose malabsorption is not always associated with intolerance symptoms. The factors responsible for symptom onset are not yet completely known. As differences in visceral sensitivity may play a role in the pathogenesis of functional symptoms, we evaluated whether an alteration of visceral sensitivity is present in subjects with lactose intolerance. Thirty subjects, recruited regardless of whether they were aware of their capacity to absorb lactose, underwent an evaluation of intestinal hydrogen production capacity by lactulose breath test, followed by an evaluation of lactose absorption by hydrogen breath test after lactose administration and subsequently an evaluation of recto-sigmoid sensitivity threshold during fasting and after lactulose administration, to ascertain whether fermentation modifies intestinal sensitivity. The role of differences in gastrointestinal transit was excluded by gastric emptying and mouth-to-caecum transit time by (13)C-octanoic and lactulose breath tests. Lactulose administration induced a significant reduction of discomfort threshold in subjects with lactose intolerance but not in malabsorbers without intolerance symptoms or in subjects with normal lactose absorption. Perception threshold showed no changes after lactulose administration. Severity of symptoms in intolerant subjects was significantly correlated with the reduction of discomfort thresholds. Visceral hypersensitivity should be considered in the induction of intolerance symptoms in subjects with lactose malabsorption.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".