Prevalence and characteristics of dyspepsia among college students in Zhejiang Province
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the prevalence and characteristics of uninvestigated dyspepsia among college students in Zhejiang Province. METHODS: Young adult students attending undergraduate (within the 4-year program) and graduate (only first-year students) colleges in Zhejiang Province were recruited between November 2010 and March 2011 to participate in the self-report survey study. The questionnaire was designed to collect data regarding demographics (sex and age), general health [weight and height, to calculate body mass index (BMI)], and physical episodes related to gastrointestinal disorders. Diagnosis of dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) was made according to the Rome III criteria. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) was defined by episodes of heartburn and/or acid reflux that occurred at least once a week, according to the Montreal definition. RESULTS: Of 2520 students recruited for survey participation, only 1870 (males: 967; age range: 17-32 years, mean age: 21.3 years) returned a completed questionnaire. One hundred and eight (5.67%) of the student participants fit the criteria for dyspepsia diagnosis. Stratification analysis of dyspepsia and non-dyspepsia cases showed no statistically significant differences in age or BMI; however, the prevalence of dyspepsia was significantly higher in women than in men (7.53% vs 4.14%, P < 0.05). Stratification analysis of dyspepsia by grade level showed that year 4 undergraduate students had a significantly higher prevalence of dyspepsia (10.00% vs undergraduate year 1: 5.87%, year 2: 3.53% and year 3: 7.24%, and graduate year 1: 3.32%). Nearly all (95.37%) students with dyspepsia reported symptoms of postprandial distress syndrome, but only a small portion (4.63%) reported symptoms suggestive of abdominal pain syndrome. The students with dyspepsia also showed significantly higher rates of IBS (16.67% vs non-dyspepsia students: 6.30%, P < 0.05) and GERD (11.11% vs 0.28%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Although the prevalence of dyspepsia among Zhejiang college students is low, the significantly higher rates of concomitant IBS and GERD suggest common pathophysiological disturbances.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".