An Open-Label, Noncomparative, Multicenter Study to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety of NASHA/Dx Gel as a Bulking Agent for the Treatment of Fecal Incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fecal incontinence (FI) is the involuntary loss of rectal contents through the anal canal. Reports of its prevalence vary from 1-21%. Studies, have demonstrated a positive effect on FI symptoms with injectable bulking agents. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of NASHA/Dx gel in the treatment of FI. One hundred fifteen eligible patients suffering from FI received 4 injections of 1 mL NASHA/Dx gel. Primary efficacy was based on data from 86 patients that completed the study. This study demonstrated a ≥50% reduction from baseline in the number of FI episodes in 57.1% of patients at 6 months, and 64.0% at 12 months. Significant improvements (P < .001) were also noted in total number of both solid and loose FI episodes, FI free days, CCFIS, and FIQL scores in all 4 domains. The majority of the treatment related AEs (94.9%) were mild or moderate intensity, and (98.7%) of AEs resolved spontaneously, or following treatment, without sequelae. Results of this study indicate NASHA/Dx gel was efficacious in the treatment of FI. Treatment effect was significant both in reduction of number of FI episodes and disease specific quality of life at 6 months and lasted up to 12 months after treatment.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".