No increase in prevalence of somatization in functional <i>vs</i> organic dyspepsia: a cross‐sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychological factors are associated with functional gastrointestinal (GI) disorders. Literature suggests that somatization is associated with functional dyspepsia (FD). However, the relationship between organic dyspepsia (OD), FD, and FD subtypes and somatization is poorly described. We aimed to examine this issue in a cross-sectional study of secondary care patients. METHODS: Demographic and GI symptom data were collected from 4224 adult patients via the Rome III questionnaire. Somatization data were collected using the patient health questionnaire-12. Mean somatization score and number of somatic symptoms were compared between patients with organic and FD, and between FD subtypes using analysis of variance. The same comparison was undertaken for the proportion of patients reporting individual somatic symptoms. KEY RESULTS: Exactly, 783 patients met criteria for dyspepsia, of whom 231 (29.5%) had organic disease following upper GI endoscopy. Mean somatization scores and number of somatic symptoms were no higher in functional vs OD (p = 0.23; p = 0.19). In addition, while the prevalence of somatization in FD was relatively high, there was no difference in severity of somatization in FD subgroups. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Somatization is associated with functional and OD to the same degree. Overall severity of somatization did not appear to vary according to FD subtype.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".