MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4387845882 · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-45401-y

Psychological status of patients with functional anorectal pain and treatment efficacy of paroxetine in alleviating the symptoms: a retrospective study

2023· article· en· W4387845882 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mingfeng Fan, Laian Li, Xiangjun Xu, Cong Zhou, Peng Wang, Wanbin Yin, Wenju Pei, Shuai Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Technology Development Plan of Shandong ProvinceJining Medical University
KeywordsParoxetineRetrospective cohort studyMedicineInternal medicinePsychiatryAntidepressantAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical characteristics, psychological status, sleep quality, and quality of life of patients with functional anorectal pain (FAP). The study also assessed the treatment efficacy of paroxetine in alleviating FAP symptoms. A retrospective comparative study of forty-three patients with FAP who were first treated with an anal plug compound glycolate suppository versus paroxetine combined with anal plug compound glycolate suppository between November 2021 and August 2022. Pain, quality of life, depression, anxiety and sleep quality were assessed before and after treatment by the Chinese version of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2 (SF-MPQ-2), Health-related quality of life scale (The 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey, SF-12), 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), 14-item Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). A total of 46.5% of patients with FAP were found to have anxiety symptoms (HAMA ≥ 7), 37.2% of patients with FAP were found to have depressive symptoms (HDRS ≥ 8). A total of 32.6% of patients with FAP had sleep disorders (PSQI > 10). Within 1 week after drug withdrawal, the short-term efficacy rate of oral paroxetine was 95.5%. After treatment, the symptom pain score (VAS) and sleep score were lower than those before treatment (P < 0.01). In the areas of vitality (VT), Social Functioning (SF), and Mental Health (MH), the difference between the pre-treatment and 8 weeks posttreatment scores of the study group and the control group was statistically significant (P < 0.05). FAP patients have obvious symptoms of anxiety and depression, and the incidence of sleep disturbance is prevalent. Paroxetine, a typical serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), was able to alleviate depression, anxiety, and pain symptoms in FAP, which might have clinical application prospects.

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)0.000
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Reports→Same topicGastrointestinal motility and disorders→French-language works237,207→