The Role of Stress in the Development and Clinical Course of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Epidemiological Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether psychological stress contributes to the inflammatory process in the inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). This review assesses the epidemiological evidence regarding a causal link between stress and gut inflammation in IBD. METHODS: A Medline search identified prospective studies of the effects of stress on subsequent disease activity and randomized controlled studies of the effects of psychological interventions on disease course in IBD. Controlled retrospective studies were included in the review of aspects of the stress-inflammatory relationship for which few prospective studies are available (e.g. the link between stress and disease onset). Studies were assessed qualitatively. RESULTS: Among 9 longitudinal studies of stress or depression and disease course, a significant stress-inflammation relationship has been found when UC and CD are studied independently (4 of 4 studies positive) but studies of mixed samples of CD and UC have mostly had negative results (1 of 5 studies positive). Evidence of a contribution of stress to disease onset is very weak. The results of 5 studies of psychological interventions in IBD have been negative or modestly supportive of benefit. Confidence in therapeutic benefits of psychological interventions results is limited by methodological weaknesses in these studies. DISCUSSION: There is consistent evidence for a contribution of psychological factors to IBD disease course, especially stress in UC and depressive symptoms in CD. More rigorous tests of psychological interventions in IBD are needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".