The economic impact of irritable bowel syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although little mortality is associated with irritable bowel syndrome, curative therapy does not exist and thus the economic impact of this disorder may be considerable. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed. Studies were included if their focus was irritable bowel syndrome, and direct and/or productivity (indirect) costs were reported. Two investigators abstracted the data independently. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-four studies were retrieved by the search; 11 fulfilled all criteria for entry into the review. The mean direct costs of irritable bowel syndrome management were reported to be UK pound sterling90, Canadian$259 and US$619 per patient annually, with total annual direct costs related to irritable bowel syndrome of pound sterling45.6 million (UK) and $1.35 billion (USA). Direct resource consumption of all health care for irritable bowel syndrome patients ranged from US$742 to US$3166. Productivity costs ranged from US$335 to US$748, with total annual costs of $205 million estimated in the USA. Annual expenditure for all health care, in addition to expenditure limited to gastrointestinal disorders, was significantly higher in irritable bowel syndrome patients than in control populations. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of significant mortality, irritable bowel syndrome is associated with high direct and productivity costs. Irritable bowel syndrome patients consume more gastrointestinal-related and more total health care resources than non-irritable bowel syndrome controls, and sustain significantly greater productivity losses.
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 | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".