Abnormal rectal motor physiology in patients with irritable bowel syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A contentious issue is whether irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients have abnormal rectal motor physiology. Our aim was to determine whether IBS patients have abnormal rectal responses to low (urge producing) or high (pain producing) distension pressures. The IBS patients and healthy controls underwent five series of isobaric rectal distensions to examine volume-pressure relationships and rectal accommodation: (i) ascending stepwise distensions terminating upon report of moderate pain, (ii) phasic and (iii) tonic distensions at a single low pressure producing a moderate sensation of urge to defecate (iv) phasic and (v) tonic distensions at a single high pressure producing a moderate pain sensation. The IBS patients demonstrated a lower rectal volume-pressure ratio during repetitive single-pressure phasic distensions, and a slower rate of rectal accommodation during low (but not high) pressure tonic distensions. However, dynamic compliance during ascending stepwise distensions and the change in rectal volume during tonic distension were not significantly different from controls. Rectal abnormality was readily demonstrated by determining the volume-pressure ratio using a small number of repetitive single-pressure distensions, supporting the hypothesis that IBS patients have abnormal rectal motor physiology. We propose that a peripheral neuromuscular substrate may contribute to the pathogenesis of IBS.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".