Evaluation of Anal Sphincter With High Resolution Anorectal Manometry and 3D Reconstruction in Patients With Anorectal Malformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Children with anorectal malformation (ARM) require long-term follow-up, especially for fecal continence and main predictors of longer-term success are the type of ARM, associated anomalies and sacral integrity. Three-Dimensional High Resolution Anorectal Manometry (3D-HRAM) provides an image of the pressure profile of anal sphincter complex. Aim of study was to evaluate the anal sphincter function in ARM patients with 3D HRAM correlating this analysis to clinical outcome and to associated malformations. Methods: Forty ARM patients, were submitted to 3D HRAM: manometric, anatomical and clinical score were correlated to response to bowel management (BM). Results: A positive correlation between all scores and type of ARM was found: in high ARM and in patients with spinal anomalies (regardless to ARM type) lower scores were reported and even after BM they do not achieve good continence. Conclusions: 3D-HRAM provides information on the functional anatomy of the sphincter complex. Our study shows good correlation between the manometric results and clinical outcome, confirming spinal malformations and ARM type as most important prognostic risk factors for poor outcome. Specific sphincteric defects can be explored with manometry, allowing for tailored bowel management strategies.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".