Characteristics of functional bowel disorder patients: a cross‐sectional survey using the Rome III criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is some evidence that, despite attempts to classify them separately, functional bowel disorders are not distinct entities and that such divisions are artificial. AIM: To examine this issue in a large cohort of secondary care patients. METHODS: Consecutive, unselected adults with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms attending out-patient clinics at two hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario were recruited. Demographic data, symptoms and presence of anxiety, depression or somatisation were collected prospectively. We used validated questionnaires, including the Rome III questionnaire, with patients categorised as having irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), functional diarrhoea or chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC). We compared data between these disorders, and measured degree of overlap between them by suspending their mutual exclusivity. RESULTS: Of 3656 patients providing complete lower GI symptom data, 1551 (42.4%) met criteria for a functional bowel disorder. Diarrhoea-predominant IBS (IBS-D) patients were younger, and more were female, met criteria for anxiety, and reported somatisation-type behaviour, compared with functional diarrhoea. Only loose, mushy or watery stools were more common in functional diarrhoea. When mutual exclusivity was suspended, overlap occurred in 27.6%. Constipation-predominant IBS (IBS-C) patients were younger, and more were female, had never married, reported anxiety type symptoms and exhibited somatisation-type behaviour. One in five CIC patients reported abdominal pain or discomfort. All constipation symptoms were more common in IBS-C. When the mutual exclusivity was suspended, overlap occurred in 18.1%. CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences in demographics between individuals with functional bowel disorders. Despite this, the Rome III classification system falls short of describing unique entities.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".