International Survey of Patients With IBS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although clinicians generally make treatment decisions in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) related to the type of symptoms, other factors such as the perceived severity and the risks patients are willing to tolerate for effective treatment are also important to consider. These factors are not fully understood. OBJECTIVE: To describe among patients with IBS their symptoms and severity, quality of life and health status, medications taken, and the risk that they would take to continue medications for optimal relief. METHODS: Adult patients diagnosed with IBS who accessed the websites of the International Foundation for Functional GI Disorders or the University of North Carolina Center for Functional GI Disorders filled out questionnaires to address the study aims. RESULTS: The 1966 respondents (83% female, 91% white, 78% US/Canada) reported impaired health status: restricting on average 73 days of activity in a year, having poor health-related quality of life particularly with dietary restrictions, mood disturbance, and interference with daily activity, and 35% reported their symptoms as severe defined primarily as pain, bowel difficulties, bloating, and eating/dietary restrictions). These symptoms were reported in some combination by over 90%, and 35.1% endorsed all 4 items. To receive a treatment that would make them symptom free, patients would give up 25% of their remaining life (average 15 y) and 14% would risk a 1/1000 chance of death. Most of the medications being taken were for pain relief and 18% were taking narcotics. Complementary and alternative treatments were used by 37%. CONCLUSIONS: Patients accessing IBS informational websites report moderate-to-severe impairments in health status, and would take considerable risk to obtain symptom benefit. There is an unmet need to find effective treatments for patients with IBS and regulatory agencies might consider raising risk-benefit ratios when approving new medications for IBS.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".