Evidence that Stress Contributes to Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Evaluation, Synthesis, and Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a long but inconsistent history of observations suggesting that psychologic stress contributes to the course of ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). This study evaluated the strength of evidence for a causal link between stress, depression, and inflammatory bowel disease course. METHODS: Literature review and unstructured qualitative analysis of all reported prospective studies of stress or depression and disease outcomes and randomized controlled studies (RCTs) of stress reduction interventions. RESULTS: Although results remain inconsistent, prospective studies support a role for psychologic stress in the course of UC and for depressive symptoms in the course of CD. RCTs do not support the benefit of stress reduction for unselected patients with CD. UC has not been studied with adequately designed RCTs. Animal models suggest mechanisms whereby stress can exacerbate preexisting inflammatory disease, especially through increased epithelial permeability. CONCLUSIONS: A synthesis of the literature is presented suggesting approaches to reconcile apparently contradictory findings. Recommendations for further research emphasize refinements to avoid type II error and to identify subgroups of patients who are most likely to experience stress-related effects on illness or to benefit from stress reduction intervention.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".