Further validation of the IBS-QOL: a disease-specific quality-of-life questionnaire
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There has been growing interest in the investigation of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among patients with gastrointestinal (GI) disorders. We recently reported on the development and preliminary validation of the IBS-QOL, a specific quality-of-life measure for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The aim of this study was to determine the longitudinal construct validity (responsiveness) of the IBS-QOL. METHODS: Female patients enrolled in a multicenter treatment trial for functional bowel disorders were studied pre- and posttreatment with the IBS-QOL and other health status measures. Based on the response to treatment for several variables (pain/14-day score, daily function, and days in bed/3 months), patients were stratified into Responders, Partial Responders, and Nonresponders. Change scores in the IBS-QOL were then statistically compared with changes in the other variables to determine their correlation and whether Responders were significantly different from non- and Partial Responders on the IBS-QOL. RESULTS: There was a significant correlation between change scores on the IBS-QOL and the other measures of treatment effect (Pain/14 days, r = 0.25, p < 0.002; Sickness Impact Profile [SIP] Total Score, r = 0.28, p < 0.0004). In addition, the IBS-QOL scores significantly differentiated Responders from Nonresponders for most of the variables tested (regression trend test for Pain/14 days, p < 0.04; SIP Total, p < 0.0001; SIP Physical, p < 0.0001; SIP Psychosocial, p < 0.002, and SIP Eating, p < 0.04). CONCLUSION: The IBS-QOL is responsive to treatment in a referral-based clinical population of patients with functional bowel disorders.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it