Impact of ulcerative colitis from patientsʼ and physiciansʼ perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two national internet surveys were conducted to understand how patients perceive the impact of ulcerative colitis (UC) relative to gastroenterologists. METHODS: In total, 451 patients with UC (20% mild, 63% moderate, 13% severe, 4% unsure [patient self-assessment]) were recruited for one survey and 300 gastroenterologists (not associated with the patients) were recruited for the other survey. RESULTS: Patients reported, on average, 8 (self-defined) flares per year; this was more than the number anticipated by gastroenterologists. Sixty-two percent of patients with UC reported that their disease made it difficult to lead a normal life, compared with gastroenterologists' estimations of 36%. Only 42% of patients believed that being in remission could mean living without symptoms. Both patients and gastroenterologists reported that it is difficult for patients to take medication as prescribed every day (42% and 90%) and that managing UC medication is a struggle for patients (49% and 41%). Forty-six percent of patients admitted nonadherence to their therapy over the previous week, while gastroenterologists believed that 41% of their patients were not adherent. CONCLUSIONS: These surveys identified disparities between patients' and gastroenterologists' perceptions of the impact of UC on patients' lives. The results suggest that more patients than gastroenterologists estimated chose to adapt their lives to accommodate UC rather than act to optimize therapy and adherence. Improved communication between patients and gastroenterologists, as well as better management strategies and education are necessary.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".