Dysfunctional metacognitive beliefs and gastrointestinal disorders. Beyond an ‘organic’/‘functional’ categorization in the clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Despite the role of metacognition in psychopathology, no studies have explored this construct in the area of gastrointestinal disorders. Moreover, for many times there was a categorization between organic and functional gastrointestinal disorders. The aim of this study was to compare dysfunctional metacognitive beliefs between patients with functional bowel disorders and patients with organic bowel disorders. The purpose of this work was also to examine the relations between metacognitions, alexithymia and symptoms of the patients on the basis of diagnosis. Methods: A between-subject non parametric and correlational design was employed. We formed three clinical groups from a population of patients with gastrointestinal disorders and on the basis of the ‘organic’ and ‘functional’ diagnosis. All the participants underwent the Metacognitions Questionnaire 30, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 and the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale. Results: There were no significant differences between the three clinical groups on MCQ-30 and TAS-20 scores. However, there were significant correlations based on diagnosis of the gastrointestinal disorder between alexithymic features and metacognitive dysfunctional beliefs. Conclusions: Our results underline the role of metacognitions for both patients with organic and functional gastrointestinal disorders. Moreover, the results highlight the importance to consider these aspects in patients with organic gastrointestinal disorder. Keywords: alexithymia; Crohn’s disease; IBS; metacognition; ulcerative colitis.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".