MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Further Characterization of Painful Functional Constipation (PFC)

2006· article· en· W2978082471 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas A. Drossman, Carolyn Morris, Yuming Hu, Jane Leserman, Christine B. Dalton, Brenda B. Toner, Nicholas E. Diamant, Shrikant I. Bangdiwala

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConstipationInternal medicineFunctional constipationQuality of life (healthcare)Irritable bowel syndromePhysical therapyGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Patients with painful functional constipation (PFC) differ from those with painless constipation in having poorer health related quality of life and more somatic symptoms (Bharucha Am J Gastro, 2006). The aim was to further characterize clinical features of PFC over time and relative to IBS, another painful disorder. We sought to: 1) compare PFC with IBS and its subtypes, 2) determine clinical features of PFC over time, and 3) compare PFC patients with high (HP) and low (LP) pain scores. Methods: From 231 women in an NIH trial, Rome II moderate to severe PFC (n = 41), IBS-A (n = 55), IBS-C (varies between IBS-C or IBS-mixed over 1 year; n = 80) and IBS-D (between IBS-D or IBS-mixed; n = 55) received diary cards on stool frequency, consistency and pain (VAS) daily for 14 days pre-and post 12-wk treatment and at 3-mo intervals for 1 yr. PFC was characterized into HP and LP groups by a median split of VAS pain scores. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and comparisons performed by χχ2 for categorical and t-tests for continuous variables. Linear regression and repeated measures tested between- and within-group associations respectively. Results: a) PFC differs from IBS with: higher pain scores (p= 0.002), lower education (p= 0.02), greater health care use and surgeries (p= 0.05 to 0.003), and poorer daily function (SIP Overall p= 0.004), b) PFC is similar to IBS-C and IBS-A but different from IBS-D for stool frequency and consistency (p < 0.0001), bloating (p= 0.02), laxative/antidiarrheal use (p= 0.04 and 0.02) and lower education (p= 0.02). c) Over 1 year, PFC: maintained higher pain scores than IBS, had stool frequencies less than IBS-D and between IBS-C and IBS-A, had stool consistency less than IBS-D and similar to IBS-A, d) For HP and LP PFC there was no difference in constipation, and HP switched to LP over time, while LP stayed low. Limitations include the absence of a painless constipation group, and studying moderate to severe symptoms which may not represent all with PFC or IBS. Conclusions: PFC is clinically similar in stool pattern and bloating to IBS-C and IBS-A, but different from IBS with greater pain, health care utilization and poorer daily function. Over 1 year, stool frequency/consistency of PFC is stable, but HP scores decrease. Supported by NIH: RO1DK49334 and R24 DK067674, GCRC 000024 and Novartis Pharmaceuticals

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)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicGastrointestinal motility and disorders→French-language works237,207→