MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

PTU-118 Comparison of Anal Sphincter Function Using Solid-State and Water-Perfused High Resolution Anorectal Manometry (HRAM) In Healthy Volunteers

2016· article· en· W2550686019 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Annika M. P. Rasijeff, M M Withers, Jocelyn F. Burke, Warren Jackson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnorectal manometryAnal canalAsymptomaticCatheterInternal anal sphincterSurgeryNuclear medicineAnesthesiaRectumDefecation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction To compare anal sphincter pressure parameters using water-perfused (WP) and a solid-state (SS) HRAM catheter in healthy volunteers using a standardised protocol to provide normal values. Methods 60 asymptomatic volunteers were studied (20 M/40 F). WP HRAM single-use ano-rectal catheters (ARC), 10 channels, external diameter 14 Fr (MUI Scientific, Canada) and SS HRAM multi-use ARC, 8 channels placed 0.8 cm apart, external diameter of 12 Fr, 16 Fr at sensors (UniSensor AG, Switzerland) both distributed by Ardmore Healthcare, UK. Studies were performed consecutively in a randomised order with the volunteers in the left-lateral position with knees & hips flexed. After a 3 minute familiarisation period, the following test manoeuvres were performed according to a standardised protoco,1 Rest- subject relaxed and lying still, anorectal pressures measured for 1 minute. Cough- asked to cough once maximally. Squeeze- asked to squeeze maximally for 5 seconds. Cough & squeeze manoeuvres were repeated twice. Sensation of maximum rectal capacity was assessed by gradual inflation of the balloon at a rate of 2 ml/sec using an automated pump. Results Normal values (5 th-95th percentile) for parameters of ano-rectal function in males & females using. Conclusion Significant differences between the two systems were observed for maximum squeeze increment and maximum cough increment in males & females (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two catheter types in relation to anal canal length, resting pressure or maximum tolerated volume. This study utilised the same manometry system to record and analyse results, making it the first study to directly compare the impact of catheter choice on HRAM in normal volunteers. Reference 1 Carrington EV, et al. Traditional measures of normal anal sphincter function using HRAM) in 115 healthy volunteers. Neurogastro & Motility 2014;26(5):625–635. Disclosure of Interest None Declared

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPelvic floor disorders treatments→French-language works237,207→