The Manitoba IBD Cohort Study: A Population-Based Study of the Prevalence of Lifetime and 12-Month Anxiety and Mood Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Given the impact of anxiety and mood disorders on health, it is important to consider these disorders in persons with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We assessed the prevalence of anxiety and mood disorders in a population-based IBD cohort. METHODS: A structured diagnostic interview was administered to participants in the cohort (N = 351), and rates were compared to age-, gender-, and region-matched controls drawn from a national survey (N = 779). RESULTS: A comparison of lifetime prevalence suggests higher rates of panic, generalized anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorders and major depression and lower rates of social anxiety and bipolar disorders in the IBD sample than in national samples in the United States and New Zealand. Direct comparisons with matched controls (with data available for three anxiety disorders) found lifetime prevalence (IBD vs controls) as follows: social anxiety disorder lower in IBD (6%vs 11%, OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32-0.85), panic disorder not significantly different (8.0%vs 4.7%, OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.96-2.63), agoraphobia without panic not significantly different (1.1%vs 0.6%, OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.37-5.55), and major depression higher (27.2%vs 12.3%, OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.64-2.95). Comparing IBD respondents with and without lifetime anxiety or mood disorder, those with a disorder reported lower quality of life and earlier onset of IBD symptoms and there was a trend toward earlier IBD diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should be aware of the increased prevalence of depression and possibly other anxiety disorders in persons with IBD as these disorders may influence response to treatment and quality of life.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".