MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2928823338 · doi:10.7759/cureus.4382

Clinical Efficacy and Safety Profile of Prucalopride in Chronic Idiopathic Constipation

2019· review· en· W2928823338 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Asim Tameez Ud Din, Ameer Khan, Hamza Bajwa, Muhammad Haisum Maqsood, Mustafa Nadeem Malik

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConstipationProkinetic agentInternal medicineChronic constipationTegaserodGastroenterologyDefecationAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) can be defined as bowel movements that are difficult to pass, are not occurring frequently, or have incomplete evacuation during defecation. A high-fiber diet and laxatives are the commonly used treatments, but in many cases, they do not produce satisfactory results. The first line of treatment is osmotic laxatives. If there is no improvement, the second line is guanylate cyclase-C (GCC) agonists like linaclotide or prokinetic agents such as prucalopride. On December 14, 2018, the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) approved prucalopride for treating chronic idiopathic constipation. Prucalopride is a prokinetic agent which works at the 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor 4 (5-HT4) as an agonist with greater receptor selectivity. Patients on prucalopride reported improved symptoms, quality of life and satisfaction. The most frequent adverse events were headaches and problems related to the gastrointestinal tract. Caution should be taken when using prucalopride in patients with impaired liver and renal function. In Canada, prucalopride has been approved for treatment of female patients with chronic idiopathic constipation who have failed therapy with at least two laxatives from different classes over a six-month period.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207