Constipated patients with functional defecatory disorder have secondary rectal hyposensitivity due to altered rectal biomechanics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Rectal hyposensitivity (RH) is common in constipation and often coexists with functional defecatory disorder (FDD). Rectal sensory thresholds are routinely evaluated with the anorectal manometry probe; however, the gold standard for the assessment of rectal sensitivity is with a barostat, use of which is limited by time constraints and availability. A novel rapid barostat bag (RBB) may facilitate measurements of rectal sensitivity. The aim is to evaluate the relationship between RH (measured by the RBB) and FDD (defined as any minor disorder of rectoanal coordination by the London classification) in constipated patients. METHODS: Consecutive constipated patients referred for anorectal function testing underwent anorectal manometry with the 3D-HDAM probe as well as rectal sensation testing with the RBB pump. RH was defined by volume to first sensation >30%, urge to defecate >80%, or discomfort >100% (normalized to rectal capacity). RESULTS: Fifty-three percent of constipated patients had RH. Patients with FDD had a significantly increased volume to first sensation (134.5 mL vs 102.0, P = 0.02), urge to defecate (187.0 mL vs 149.0, P = 0.04), and rectal capacity (253.5 mL vs 209.0, P = 0.04) compared to constipated patients without FDD. There was no difference in normalized sensory thresholds (percent of rectal capacity) nor the prevalence of hyposensitivity to each sensory threshold nor overall hyposensitivity. CONCLUSION: Patients with FDD, when measured with the RBB, have increased sensory thresholds on volumetric distension, but RH was not observed when sensory threshold volume were normalized to rectal capacity. This may reflect "secondary" RH due to altered rectal biomechanics.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".