The IBS-36: a new quality of life measure for irritable bowel syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop and validate a quality of life instrument for patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). METHODS: Using focus groups, existing questionnaires, and literature reviews, five IBS patients and nine gastroenterologists compiled and pilot tested for content validity a 70-item questionnaire. The questionnaire was then administered to 107 IBS patients, and using these data, the 70-item questionnaire was reduced to 36 questions through statistical and consensus methodology. The IBS-36 questionnaire was tested for construct validity, reliability, reproducibility, and responsiveness using a gold standard of structured interviews by three gastroenterologists, the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Quality of Life Questionnaire, and the Coping Resource Inventory. RESULTS: The IBS-36 consists of 36 questions scored on a 7-point Likert scale. It has a very high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.95) and a high test-retest reliability (Spearman's r = 0.92) and correlates as hypothesized with the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Quality of Life Questionnaire (p < 0.001), McGill pain scores (p < 0.001), and IBS patient-reported sleep, symptom, and pain scores (ps = 0.030, <0.001, and <0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The IBS-36 addresses all areas of quality of life affected by IBS and is easy to administer and score. The IBS-36 is a well-validated, condition-specific quality of life measure for IBS patients that is sensitive to clinical intervention and highly correlated with established quality of life measures and patient-reported symptom scores.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".