Anxiety is associated with impaired tolerance of colonoscopy preparation in inflammatory bowel disease and controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Pain and nausea are often reported during bowel cleansing (BC) for ileocolonoscopy (IC). We aimed to explore putative mechanisms associated with impaired tolerance to BC. METHODS: A 1:1 (100 IBD and 100 controls) sex and age matched case-control study was performed. Patients completed the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS-A/HADS-D), visceral sensitivity index (VSI) and state-trait anxiety inventory, state scale (STAI-S), in addition to self-assessment of BC and abdominal pain and nausea ratings during BC. Endoscopists reported the Mayo score, Harvey Bradshaw index (HBI), simple endoscopic score for Crohn's disease, and Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS). RESULTS: Higher VSI and depression scores were observed in IBD patients. VSI (P<0.0001) and age (P=0.008) showed a positive and negative association with abdominal pain during BC, respectively. HADS-A (P=0.009) and female sex (P=0.02) were positively associated with nausea during BC, while age (P=0.02) showed a negative association. Disease activity was not associated with worse BBPS or nausea during BC, while a higher HBI was associated with more pain during BC (P=0.0006). Nausea (P=0.007) and abdominal pain (P=0.003) during BC, and less previous ICs (P=0.03) were independently associated with anxiety prior to IC (STAI-S). Significant correlations were found between VSI and STAI-S and disease activity. CONCLUSION: Higher gastrointestinal-specific anxiety and co-morbid anxiety are associated with increased pain and nausea during BC, respectively. Pain and nausea during BC were in turn associated with higher anxiety levels at the moment of IC, potentially creating a "vicious circle". Measures taken to reduce anxiety could improve BC and IC tolerance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".