MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Post-Traveler's Diarrhea Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Prospective Study

2003· article· en· W2016649545 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alexandra Ilnyckyj, Brinda Balachandra, Lawrence Elliott, Shurjeel Choudhri, Donald R. Duerksen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTravel-related health issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIrritable bowel syndromeIncidence (geometry)Prospective cohort studyDiarrheaEtiologyCohortCohort studyTraveler's diarrheaRelative riskInternal medicinePediatricsConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Anecdotal evidence suggests that irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) can develop after an episode of traveler's diarrhea (TD). This observation supports a contemporary paradigm proposed for the etiology of IBS and may have important implications for public health strategies aimed at preventing TD. This study aimed to determine the incidence of IBS in people experiencing TD. METHODS: A total of 109 healthy adults traveling outside of Canada or the United States were identified and enrolled in a prospective, cohort field study. GI symptoms before and after travel were assessed using the Rome I criteria. Travel diaries and questionnaires were used to assess for TD. RESULTS: The incidence of TD in the study cohort was 44%. Among those experiencing TD, the incidence of IBS was 4.2%. In those not experiencing TD, the incidence of IBS post-travel was 1.6% (relative risk = 2.5, 95% CI = 0.2-27.2, p = 0.41, ns). There was no significant difference in the incidence of IBS between the exposed and nonexposed groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support a large association between TD and an increased risk of developing IBS. A small increase in relative risk may have been undetected because of the size of the study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations95
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicTravel-related health issuesFrench-language works237,207