Comprehension and awareness of symptoms in women with dyspepsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Overlapping symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and dyspepsia are a problem for physicians and patients. AIM: This study explored comprehension of dyspepsia symptoms and associated medical terminology among women with symptoms of dyspepsia. METHODS: The US women aged > or = 18 years with dyspepsia (defined by Rome II criteria) were recruited in two phases, via direct mail, the Internet, clinical investigators and/or gastroenterologists. In phase I, subjects took part in an hour-long telephonic interview comprising open-ended questions relating to symptom frequency/duration, triggers/patterns and severity. During phase II, subjects took part in a 45-min telephonic interview, which explored their understanding of dyspepsia symptoms and their predominant or most bothersome symptom. RESULTS: Subjects with 'pure' dyspepsia (without overlapping symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease or irritable bowel syndrome) were sought, but of 777 subjects screened, most were excluded because of gastrointestinal comorbidities (irritable bowel syndrome, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease). Only 85 (11%) subjects had 'pure' dyspepsia of whom 11 withdrew. Of the 74 subjects interviewed, 70% were unfamiliar with the term 'dyspepsia'. Subjects reported several symptoms, including bloating (65%), gas (50%), nausea (41%) and discomfort (36%). Most subjects could distinguish between symptom bothersomeness and severity, and between pain and discomfort. Terms such as 'satisfactory relief', 'central upper abdominal discomfort', 'early satiety' and 'postmeal fullness' were often misunderstood. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with 'pure' dyspepsia are rare, because of comorbidities. Dyspepsia-related terminology is often misunderstood by subjects.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".