Therapeutic value of a gastroenterology consultation in irritable bowel syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Functional patients comprise the largest group in gastroenterology practice. Pharmacological therapy of irritable bowel syndrome is disappointing. One treatment strategy for irritable bowel syndrome emphasizes the physician's role; the physician is promoted as the therapeutic modality. AIM: To determine the therapeutic value of the contemporary approach to irritable bowel syndrome by examining health care utilization and patient morbidity. METHODS: We performed an observational study over 4 years using an administrative database and morbidity scales. Health care utilization was assessed for 2 years pre- and post-intervention. Patient morbidity was assessed at baseline and 1 and 2 years post-intervention. The participants included 70 irritable bowel syndrome patients referred by primary physicians. A structured consultation was performed, establishing a positive diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome and providing disease conceptualization. RESULTS: Health care utilization for gastrointestinal diagnoses increased in the year prior to the intervention and declined immediately after to baseline; psychiatric and other visits remained unchanged for 4 years. Pain was reduced but other morbidity persisted. CONCLUSIONS: A consultation itself is a therapeutic intervention in irritable bowel syndrome with regard to its impact on societal economic burden. It is associated with a durable decrease in illness-specific health care utilization. It may not address all aspects of irritable bowel syndrome; multiple domains of morbidity demonstrated persistent distress.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".