DIAGNOSIS AND CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT OF FUNCTIONAL DISORDERS OF DEFECATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
90 patients (female 72 (80%), male 18 (20%), mean age 43,6±16,5 y.o.) with functional disorders of defecation (dyssynergic defecation and inadequate propulsion) were included in the study. All the patients conformed the Rome III (2006) criteria for functional constipation. Highresolution anorectal manometry (HRAM) procedures (London protocol) were performed using Solar GI system (MMS, The Netherland) with 8-channel water-perfusion catheters. All the patients underwent a course of biofeedback therapy for obstructive defecation (Urostim, Laborie, Canada). The course consisted of 10 daily 30-minutes long sessions. Treatment efficacy was evaluated after the completion of biofeedback therapy according to the control HRAM. CONCLUSIONS. Biofeedback is the method of choice for treatment of patients with obstructive defecation syndrome with pelvic floor dyssynergia and spasm of m.puborectalis. At the same time biofeedback therapy is ineffective in patients with type III of manometry pattern and in patients with an inadequate propulsion.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".