The Gap Between Flare-Up Recognition and Judgment of Need for Physician Visit in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) recognize that their conditions are worsening, they do not always visit a doctor immediately. Our aim was to investigate how patients recognize a flare-up of UC and how significant a gap there is between symptoms recognized as a flare-up and symptoms judged to require physician visit. Methods: Questionnaires were distributed to 1,641 Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of Japan members and returned by 426, with 260 UC patients subsequently analyzable (Crohn’s disease patients were excluded). Symptoms recognized as a flare-up of UC and symptoms judged to require physician visit were collected as free descriptions. A gap was determined if descriptions of symptoms judged to require physician visit contained expressions of prolonged symptoms, aggravation of symptoms, or critical symptoms. Furthermore, obvious delay was also determined if described symptoms contained critical symptoms. Results: Blood in stool was the most significant flare-up symptom recognized in patients with UC. A gap was observed in 134 cases (56.8%) and obvious delay was present in 70 cases (29.7%). Moreover, 52% of subjects debated whether to consult with a doctor when their conditions became subtly worse. Conversely, approximately 50% subjects also reported “If my condition subtly worsens, I want to visit a doctor immediately”. Conclusions: A lthough patients with UC recognized flare-ups accurately, a gap was observed in half of our subjects. Our data are important evidence that health professionals must educate patients effectively to improve patient outcomes. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/gr543w
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".