Bibliographic record
Abstract
Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is one of the most common diagnoses made in primary care accounting for approximately12% of all visits; further estimates report upwards of 20% of American have IBS. Patients present initially with abdominal pain and alteration in bowel movements that are dominant in constipation, diarrhea, or alternating between the two. These symptoms cause changes in health-related quality of life. Although several theories exist the cause of IBS is unknown; therefore, there is no cure, only management of symptoms. Currently, symptom management based on IBS subtype with multiple pharmacologic agents is the norm. Although antispasmodics have been reported as effective, the choice of pharmacotherapy remains largely subjective based on patient response and ultimately the provider patient relationship influences the choices offered. Probiotics (live bacteria) are an emerging therapy option with no serious adverse reactions. Their ability to improve quality of life for the patient by way of reducing symptoms of abdominal pain and bloating, passing of flatus, and incomplete evacuation/straining is significant. Bifidobacterium infantis has the potential to significantly reduce IBS related healthcare costs and provide a resource for the primary care provider other than sending the patient to Gastroenterology for evaluation. Probiotic use in primary care is a safe option for treatment of IBS.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".