Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing evidence that supports the view that irritable bowel disorder (IBS) is a disorder of brain-gut function. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) has received increased attention in light of this recent shift in the conceptualization of IBS. This review has two main aims. The first is to provide a critical review of controlled trials on CBT for IBS. The second is to discuss ways of further developing CBT interventions that are more clinically relevant and meaningful to health care providers and individuals with a diagnosis of IBS. A theme from a CBT intervention will be presented to illustrate how CBT interventions can be incorporated within a larger social context. A review of CBT for IBS lends some limited support for improvement in some IBS symptoms and associated psychosocial distress. This conclusion needs to be expressed with some caution, however, in light of many methodological shortcomings including small sample sizes, inadequate control conditions and failure to identify primary versus secondary outcome measures. In addition, future studies will need to further develop more relevant CBT protocols that more fully integrate the patient's perspective and challenge social cognitions about this stigmatized disorder.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".