Irritable bowel syndrome is significantly associated with somatisation in 840 patients, which may drive bloating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychological factors may influence persistence and perceived severity of symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Literature suggests that somatisation is associated with IBS. However, the relationship between IBS subtype, symptoms of IBS and somatisation is unclear. AIM: To examine this issue in a large cohort of secondary care patients. METHODS: Demographic and gastrointestinal (GI) symptom data were collected from 4224 adult patients via the Rome III questionnaire. Somatisation data were collected using the patient health questionnaire-12. Mean somatisation score and number of somatic symptoms were compared between IBS patients and controls with minimal GI symptoms, and between IBS subtypes using analysis of variance. Effect of level of somatisation on symptom frequency was compared according to IBS subtype using a χ(2) test. RESULTS: 840 patients met Rome III criteria for IBS, controls were 2137 patients with GI symptoms without IBS. Mean somatisation scores and number of somatic symptoms were higher in IBS vs. controls (P < 0.001), and in mixed stool pattern IBS (IBS-M), vs. IBS with constipation (IBS-C) or diarrhoea (IBS-D) (P < 0.001). High levels of somatisation were more prevalent in IBS-M (31.7%) vs. IBS-C (22.5%) or IBS-D (20.8%) (P = 0.003). For all IBS subtypes, high levels of somatisation were associated with a greater frequency of bloating or abdominal distension prior to logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: IBS is strongly associated with higher levels of somatisation, particularly IBS-M. Bloating may be associated with higher levels of somatisation, perhaps explaining why it can be difficult to treat.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".