Are floating stools associated with specific functional bowel disorders?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Functional bowel disorders are recognized as being common, but remain very difficult to diagnose accurately and to differentiate from one another, despite their significant impact on the quality of life of patients.The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the clinical sign of 'floating stools' is associated with psychological disorders, colonic transit time, or other specific bowel disorders as defined by the Rome III diagnostic criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1252 consecutive patients, referred for and found to have functional gastrointestinal disorders, filled in a standard clinical questionnaire on the basis of the Rome III diagnostic criteria and were asked to provide information on the presence of floating stools. Overall, 344 of these scored positive for functional bowel disorders and underwent psychometric testing and colonic transit time studies. RESULTS: Floating stools were reported by 26% of functional bowel disorder patients and 3% of the other functional gastrointestinal disorder patients (P<0.001). The basic demographic characteristics, psychometric evaluation scores, Bristol stool form scales, and total and segmental colonic transit times were not statistically different according to the presence or not of floating stools in these patients. Logistic regression showed that mixed irritable bowel syndrome was the only functional gastrointestinal disorder associated independently with floating stools (P=0.003). CONCLUSION: Floating stools are a characteristic of patients with mixed irritable bowel syndrome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".