Comparison of Rectal and Esophageal Sensitivity in Women With Functional Heartburn
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study tested the primary hypothesis that there is a correlation of maximum pain threshold (MPT) in the esophagus and rectum in persons with functional heartburn. Secondary aims evaluated correlations with initial perception threshold (IPT) and pain threshold (PT). This study explored objective sensory endpoints of IPT, PT, and MPT in the esophagus and rectum of 14 females with functional heartburn to determine whether visceral hypersensitivity is generalized or organ-specific. Data on volume and pressure measurements at IPT, PT, and MPT with esophageal and rectal barostat distention were collected. The relationship of sensation and pain to volume, pressure, and compliance was analyzed. Esophageal and rectal IPT balloon volume scores were highly and significantly correlated (r = .61, p = .02). Esophageal and rectal PT balloon volume scores were highly and significantly correlated (r = .6, p = .02). Esophageal and rectal MPT balloon volume scores were not correlated (r = .35, p = .26). The correlation of visceral sensitivity in the esophagus and rectum in persons with functional heartburn supports the hypothesis that visceral sensory changes in functional gastrointestinal disorders are not organ specific.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".