Sexual and physical abuse are not associated with rectal hypersensitivity in patients with irritable bowel syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) have reduced pain thresholds for rectal distension. In addition, the prevalence of sexual/physical abuse in referred IBS patients is high and is associated with greater pain reporting, poorer health status, and poorer outcome. This lead to a hypothesis that abuse history may sensitise patients to report pain at a lower threshold. AIM: To compare rectal pain thresholds in women with IBS who had a history of severe abuse to IBS women with no history of abuse. METHODS: We studied 74 IBS patients with a history of severe physical and/or sexual abuse and 85 patients with no history of abuse. Abuse history was assessed by a previously validated self-report abuse screening questionnaire. Rectal sensory thresholds were assessed using an electronic barostat and determined by the ascending method of limit (AML) and by the tracking technique. RESULTS: IBS patients with a history of severe abuse had significantly higher rectal pain thresholds, as measured by AML (F (1, 111) = 6.06; p = 0.015) and the tracking technique (F (1, 109) = 5.21; p = 0.024). Patients with a history of severe abuse also reported a significantly higher threshold for urgency to defecate (F (1, 113) = 11.23; p =.001). CONCLUSION: Severe sexual/physical abuse is associated with higher urge and pain thresholds for rectal distension in IBS patients. This suggests that the greater pain reporting and poorer health status in IBS patients with abuse history are not related to increased rectal pain sensitivity. Further studies are needed to determine the causes of these findings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".