Review article: the economic impact of the irritable bowel syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic functional disorder of the gastrointestinal system affecting a large number of people worldwide. Whilst it has no attributable mortality, it has substantial impact on patients' quality of life (QoL) and is associated with considerable healthcare resource use. AIM: To review the economic impact of IBS, firstly on the individual, secondly on healthcare systems internationally and thirdly to society. METHODS: Appropriate databases were searched for relevant papers using the terms: Irritable Bowel Syndrome; IBS; irritable colon; functional bowel/colonic disease; economics; health care/service costs; health expenditure/resources; health care/service utilisation; productivity. RESULTS: Irritable bowel syndrome impacts most substantially on patients' work and social life. Reduction in QoL is such that on average patients would sacrifice between 10 and 15 years of their remaining life expectancy for an immediate cure. Between 15% and 43% of patients pay for remedies. No studies quantify loss of earnings related to IBS. Direct care costs are substantial; 48% of patients incur some costs in any year with annual international estimates per patient of: USA $742-$7547, UK £90-£316, France €567-€862, Canada $259, Germany €791, Norway NOK 2098 (€262) and Iran $92. Minimising extensive diagnostic investigations could generate savings and has been shown as not detrimental to patients. Cost to industry internationally through absenteeism and presenteeism related to IBS is estimated between £400 and £900 per patient annually. CONCLUSIONS: Irritable bowel syndrome is associated with substantial costs to patients, healthcare systems and society. Considerable benefit could be obtained from effective interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".