Emotional Abuse, Self-Blame, and Self-Silencing in Women With Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the presence of emotional abuse and two psychosocial constructs (self-blame and self-silencing) in a sample of women diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) relative to a comparison sample of women diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: Women diagnosed with IBS (N = 25) were compared with women diagnosed with IBD (N = 25) on measures of history of abuse, self-blame, and self-silencing. RESULTS: It was found that women in the IBS sample scored significantly higher on emotional abuse, self-blame, and self-silencing than did women in the IBD sample. These three variables were also found to be significantly intercorrelated in both the IBS and IBD samples. Finally, emotional abuse was significantly higher in IBS patients than in IBD patients beyond the differences accounted for by physical and/or sexual abuse history. CONCLUSIONS: These findings empirically demonstrate an association between IBS and emotional abuse, as well as a possible connection with psychosocial variables, that may mediate the connection between emotional abuse and functional bowel symptoms. We suggest that these variables be further evaluated in the context of clinically relevant research on 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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".