Irritable Bowel Syndrome Subtypes Defined by Rome II and Rome III Criteria are Similar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The implications of the Rome III recommendations to change the irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) subtype criteria for stool pattern are unknown. AIM: (1) Determine the level of agreement between Rome II and Rome III subtypes and (2) compare the behaviors of Rome II and Rome III subtypes over time. METHODS: Female patients (n=148) with Rome II defined IBS were prospectively tracked over 5 consecutive 3-month periods. At baseline, bowel habit reports on questionnaires were used to subclassify patients into Rome II and Rome III subtypes. Over the subsequent 15 months, bowel habit reports on diary cards were used to subclassify patients based on previously derived surrogate criteria into Rome II and Rome III IBS subtypes. RESULTS: The level of agreement between Rome II and Rome III subtype assignments was quite high (86.5%; kappa 0.79). The behavior of Rome II and Rome III subtypes over time was also similar in terms of subtype prevalence, subtype stability, and the proportion of subjects who met criteria for alternating irritable bowel syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Rome II and Rome III IBS subtypes are in high agreement and behave similarly over time. Therefore, studies that used Rome II subtype criteria and studies that will use Rome III criteria will define comparable populations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".