Who Consults With Dyspepsia? Results from a Longitudinal 10-Yr Follow-Up Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Dyspepsia is common, and the condition is often chronic, with a relapsing and remitting nature. Factors influencing the decision to consult a physician with symptoms remain unclear. METHODS: The authors conducted a 10-yr follow-up longitudinal survey of individuals originally involved in a community-screening program for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori). All surviving, traceable participants were contacted by validated postal dyspepsia questionnaire. Baseline demographic data, dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) symptom data, and quality of life at study entry were already on file. Consent to examine primary care records was requested, and data regarding nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and aspirin use, and dyspepsia and IBS-related consultations over the 10-yr study period were extracted from these. RESULTS: Of 8,407 individuals originally involved, 3,266 (39%) gave consent to examination of primary care records. The mean age of included individuals was 55 yr, and 1,467 (45%) were male. 1,738 (53%) had dyspepsia, and 729 (42%) of these consulted a primary care physician as a result. Following multivariate logistic regression, H. pylori infection (odds ratio [OR] 1.76, 99% confidence interval [CI] 1.30-2.39), lower socioeconomic status (OR 1.68, 99% CI 1.02-2.76), frequent (OR 2.61, 99% CI 1.69-4.01) or severe (OR 1.87, 99% CI 0.99-3.52) symptoms, and increasing age (OR per year 1.06, 99% CI 1.0-1.11) were independent risk factors for consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Reasons for consulting a physician with dyspepsia are multifactorial, but H. pylori infection, lower socioeconomic status, frequent or severe symptoms, and increasing age are independent predictors of consultation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".