MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124244002 · doi:10.3389/fped.2020.595531

Functional Constipation and the Gut Microbiome in Children: Preclinical and Clinical Evidence

2021· review· en· W3124244002 on OpenAlexaff
David Rodríguez, Jelena Popov, Elyanne M. Ratcliffe, Erick Manuel Toro Monjaráz

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pediatrics · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunctional constipationConstipationMedicineGut microbiomeMicrobiomeQuality of life (healthcare)Gut floraDistressIntensive care medicineBioinformaticsImmunologyInternal medicineClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Functional constipation is a common condition in childhood with significant impact on patients' quality of life and on health care resources. Functional constipation is characterized by decreased bowel movements and/or hard stools, which cause significant distress for children and their caregivers. While the term "functional" may imply the absence of organic causes with a focus on behavioral aspects, 40% of children continue to have symptoms beyond conventional management with one in four children continuing to experience constipation into adulthood. The refractory and chronic nature of constipation highlights the importance of considering a range of pathophysiological mechanisms, including the potential role of the gut microbiome. In this review, we provide an overview of preclinical and clinical studies that focus on the potential mechanisms through which the gut microbiome might contribute to the clinical presentation of functional constipation in pediatrics.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations56
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PediatricsSame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207