A randomly selected population sample undergoing colonoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyse the epidemiology of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) symptoms in a random sample of the general population and in a subsample consenting to a colonoscopy, and to what extent this introduces symptom selection bias. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall, 3347 randomly selected Swedish adults aged 18-70 years were mailed the validated Abdominal Symptom Questionnaire (ASQ). Responders (n=2293; 68.5%) were contacted by phone, and 745 consented to a colonoscopy. All nonresponders were contacted by phone; 265 were reached and asked seven key ASQ questions. Colonoscopy participants also completed the Rome II Modular Questionnaire. RESULTS: The prevalence of IBS on the basis of the mailed ASQ (troublesome abdominal pain and bowel disturbance in the past 3 months) was 26.2% [95% confidence interval (CI): 24.4-28.0] among the ASQ responders and 36.6% (95% CI: 33.2-40.1) among the colonoscopy participants (P<0.001). Nonresponders had a lower prevalence of IBS (15.8%; 95% CI: 11.4-20.3, P<0.001) than ASQ responders. Colonoscopy participants were slightly older than noncolonoscoped participants completing the ASQ (P<0.001), but men and women were equally represented and no significant socioeconomic differences were identified. The prevalence of IBS was 14.8% (95% CI: 12.2-17.5) on the basis of the Rome II Modular Questionnaire in colonoscopy participants and 14.5% (95% CI: 11.9-17.2) when visible inflammatory disease was excluded. Of the colonoscopy participants, 31.9% (95% CI: 28.5-35.3) were symptom free. CONCLUSION: IBS symptoms are common and rarely explained by visible inflammatory disease or cancer. There was a modest selection bias by IBS in participants accepting a screening colonoscopy, but still, one-third were symptom free. Thus, conclusions for the general population can be made from findings in the study cohort.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".