Irritable bowel syndrome in France: quality of life, medical management, and costs: the Encoli study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess the proportion of physician-diagnosed irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients who conform to Rome II criteria, and evaluate the impact of IBS on quality of life (QoL) and costs in France. METHODS: This cross-sectional study collected information retrospectively from the preceding year. Physicians (randomly selected) enrolled their first four IBS patients during the study period. Patients were classified (secondarily) according to Rome II criteria. IBS-related costs during the previous year were estimated. RESULTS: Of the 452 physician-diagnosed IBS patients (mean age 53.9+/-14.9 years; 75.4% women), 23% did not meet the diagnostic criteria; 36.5% met all diagnostic criteria, and 32% experienced severe or very severe abdominal pain/discomfort (Subjects' Global Assessment of relief). IBS patients had lower QoL (SF-36 scale) than the general French population, and Rome II patients had the lowest QoL. Most prescriptions treated abdominal pain (72%) and bloating (58%). Approximately 8% of patients had been hospitalized due to IBS during the preceding year. The average total annual direct cost/patient was 756 euro. CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm that IBS involves large direct medical costs in France, and that IBS patients experience lower QoL than the general population. A small and not significant economic difference between the Rome II and non-Rome II IBS patient groups was observed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".