Consensus report: clinical perspectives, mechanisms, diagnosis and management of irritable bowel syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This consensus document reviews the current status of the epidemiology, social impact, patient quality of life, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Current evidence suggests that two major mechanisms may interact in irritable bowel syndrome: altered gastrointestinal motility and increased sensitivity of the intestine. However, other factors, such as psychosocial factors, intake of food and prior infection, may contribute to its development. Management of patients is based on a positive diagnosis of the symptom complex, careful history and physical examination to exclude 'red flags' as risk factors for organic disease, and, if indicated, investigations to exclude other disorders. Therapeutic choices include dietary fibre for constipation, opioid agents for diarrhoea and low-dose antidepressants or infrequent use of antispasmodics for pain, although the evidence basis for efficacy is limited or in some cases absent. Psychotherapy and hypnotherapy are the subject of ongoing study. Treatment should be tailored to patient needs and fears. Novel therapies are emerging, and drugs acting on serotonin receptors have proven efficacy and a scientific rationale and, if approved, should be useful in the overall management of patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Patient and physician education, early identification of psychosocial issues and better therapies are important strategies to reduce the suffering and societal cost of irritable bowel syndrome.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
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".