Depression and anxiety in inflammatory bowel disease: A review of comorbidity and management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While there has been a great deal of speculation over the years on the importance of emotional factors in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), it is only in the last decade or so that studies with stronger designs have been available to clarify the nature of this relationship. This review considers recent evidence on the prevalence of anxiety and depressive disorders in IBD, the role of these disorders as a risk factor for IBD onset, the degree to which they affect the course of the IBD, and the contribution of corticosteroid treatment to psychiatric symptom onset. There is evidence that anxiety and depression are more common in patients with IBD and that the symptoms of these conditions are more severe during periods of active disease. The few studies that address the issue of anxiety and depression as risk factors for IBD do not yet provide enough information to support definite conclusions. There is evidence, however, that the course of the disease is worse in depressed patients. Treatment with corticosteroids can induce mood disorders or other psychiatric symptoms. The second part of the review focuses on patient management issues for those with comorbid anxiety or depression. Practical approaches to screening are discussed, and are recommended for routine use in the IBD clinic, especially during periods of active disease. We review evidence-based pharmacological and psychological treatments for anxiety and depression and discuss practical considerations in treating these conditions in the context of IBD to facilitate overall management of the IBD patient.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".