Clinical, psychological, and physiological correlates of patients who defecate after meal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Food is the most important synchronizer of gastrointestinal motility and secretion. Many patients with functional bowel or anorectal disorders complain of fecal urge and stool output after eating. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective observational study, 408 consecutive outpatients with functional bowel and/or anorectal disorders (74% female, 50.2±15.6 years, 24.8±5.0 kg/m²) filled Rome III questionnaires. Depression and anxiety scores, a physiological evaluation (total and segmental colonic transit time, colonic transit response to eating using a standard 1000 kcal test meal, and anorectal manometry), were measured. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were carried out according to the presence or not of stool output after eating. RESULTS: Defecation after eating was found in 21% of patients. These patients were not different according to the demographic characteristics of sex ratio (P=0.702), age (P=0.830), and BMI (P=0.314). In contrast, they had lower state anxiety (P=0.032), but similar scores of depression (P=0.240) and trait anxiety (P=0.933). They had similar manometric characteristics (anal pressure and rectal sensitivity), but a greater response to eating in all segments of the colon. There was an increase in the frequency of functional diarrhea (odds ratio=2.576, 95% confidence interval=1.312-5.056; P=0.006) and levator ani syndrome (odds ratio=2.331, 95% confidence interval=1.099-4.944; P=0.017), but no other functional bowel disorder including irritable bowel syndrome and its subtypes was found. CONCLUSION: Stool output after eating is associated with clinical disorders but not physiological parameters. This symptom is not associated with irritable bowel syndrome, but a higher frequency of functional diarrhea.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".