Gender differences in irritable bowel syndrome: the interpersonal connection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) affects women more than men, the reasons are unclear. Research on the female preponderance of IBS has focused on gender differences in sex-linked biological processes; much less attention has been paid to the role of psychosocial factors. Interpersonal difficulties may be one source of stress that may significantly impact on women with IBS. Because of the importance that women attach to relationships, we suspected they would be more reactive to interpersonal stress. METHODS: A total of 283 (M age = 41 years, F = 80%), Rome III-diagnosed IBS patients completed a test battery that included the IBS Symptom Severity Scale, McGill Pain Questionnaire, Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP), interpersonal support evaluation list (social support), Negative Interactions Scale, Brief Symptom Inventory (distress), Beck Depression Inventory, Anxiety Sensitivity Inventory, and IBS-Quality of Life as part of baseline assessment of an NIH trial. KEY RESULTS: Males scored higher on two IIP scales reflecting a hostile-dominant interpersonal pattern, and reported less social support. The quality of relationship problems (more interpersonal difficulties, lower support) correlated with IBS symptom severity as measured mainly by gastroenterologists. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Male, not female, IBS patients reported more interpersonal difficulties. Male patients-a population for whom little is known-are characterized by hostile-dominant interpersonal problems. This finding has clinical importance, given that relationship problems may influence MDs' estimation of IBS symptom severity and undermine the physician-patient relationship.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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".