[Gastrointestinal diseases and abdominal pain in combat veterans].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To analyze the role of consequences of combat stress in the development of gastrointestinal tract (GIT) diseases. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: One hundred and sixty-one combat veterans aged 24 to 69 years were examined. All underwent a clinical and neurological examination using the McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ), Beck depression inventory, Kotenev trauma stress questionnaire, and visual analogue scale to determine pain intensity. Anxiety, impairments in memory and sleep, and depression were identified. The SF-36 questionnaire was used to estimate quality of life in the patients. Gastric secretory function was investigated; esophagogastroduodenoscopy, X-ray and ultrasound studies, clinical and biochemical blood tests, coprological examinations, fecal tests for dysbiosis, if indicated, occult blood were made. RESULTS: Combat stress and its consequences as posttraumatic stress disorder have been shown to play an important role in the pathogenesis of GIT diseases and in the development of chronic abdominal pain. GIT diseases in combat veterans are in larger measure a sequel of impaired processes of adjustment to combat stress. Chronic abdominal pains were heterogeneous. On the one hand, chronic GIT disease serves as a source of pain syndrome; on the other hand, the central nervous system is of importance in the development of chronic abdominal pain. CONCLUSION: In addition to therapy for GIT and hepatobiliary diseases, the treatment of GIT diseases in this category of patients involves psychotherapy and neuroprotection, aimed at reducing the consequences of combat stress in combat veterans.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".