A Comparison of Self-Perceived Health Status in Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Irritable Bowel Syndrome Patients from a Canadian National Population Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether differences exist in perceptions of physical health, mental health and stress levels between patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). METHODS: Data were obtained from the 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey, which had a sample size of 132,947 Canadians. Information on 4441 participants aged 19 years or older who reported that they had been diagnosed with Crohn's disease (n=474), ulcerative colitis (n=637) or IBS (n=3330) was analyzed regarding perceptions of their physical health, mental health, stress levels and activity levels. RESULTS: Overall, IBD patients reported being in fair to poor health (P<0.01) more often than IBS patients. In addition, IBS patients were more likely than IBD patients to report poor mental health status (P<0.01) and greater stress levels (P<0.01). In multivariate analyses, having IBS or IBD along with another chronic disease significantly increased the odds of reporting poorer health status. CONCLUSIONS: People with IBD were more likely to experience fair or poor general health. IBS patients reported higher levels of stress and poorer mental health than IBD patients. When IBS or IBD coexisted with another chronic condition, activity participation at home and at work was significantly more likely to be impaired.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".