Clinical Research on the Relation Between Body Mass Index, Motilin and Slow Transit Constipation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Constipation is a common clinical symptom but its etiology remains unknown. The aims of the study are to discuss the relation between body mass index (BMI), motilin and the slow transit constipation (STC). METHODS: A total of 178 patients with STC and 123 healthy volunteers as controls were divided into three groups according to the BMI, group A (BMI <20), group B (BMI 20-25), and group C (BMI > 25). Fasting and one hour postprandial plasma motilin were measured and the results were analyzed. RESULTS: There was significant difference in the constituent ratio between STC patients and healthy controls (p < 0.05). The percentage of group A, B and C in STC patients was 49.4% (88/178), 23.0% (41/178) and 27.6% (49/178), respectively; and group A had a higher percentage. Plasma motilin of fasting and one hour postprandial in STC patients of group A was significantly lower than that of group B and C (p < 0.05), but there was no difference between group B and C (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the results of plasma motilin of fasting and one hour postprandial among the three groups of healthy controls (p > 0.05). Plasma motilin of fasting and one hour postprandial in STC patients of group A was significantly lower than those healthy controls of group A (p < 0.05). The same results of plasma motilin of fasting and one hour postprandial could be seen in group B and C, respectively (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A higher proportion of low BMI sufferers was found in the STC patients. The reason may be related to the lower release of the plasma motilin.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".