Depression and inflammatory bowel disease: Findings from two nationally representative Canadian surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most studies of depression and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have been drawn from clinical populations or from samples selected from the membership of Crohn's and ulcerative colitis community organizations. This study determined the prevalence and correlates of depression in people with IBD or a similar bowel disorder from 2 nationally representative Canadian surveys. In the Canadian Community Health Survey, conducted in 2000 through 2001, there were 3076 respondents who reported that they had "a bowel disorder such as Crohn's disease or colitis" that had lasted >or=6 months and had been diagnosed by a health professional. The National Population Health Survey, conducted from 1996 through 1997, had 1438 respondents who reported that they had such a condition. Within each subsample, bivariate analyses were conducted to compare the depressed and nondepressed individuals. Logistic regression analyses also were conducted using the Canadian Community Health Survey 1.1 data set. The 12-month period prevalence of depression among individuals with IBD and similar bowel disorders was comparable in the 2 data sets (16.3% and 14.7%). Depression rates were higher among female respondents, those without partners, younger respondents, those who reported greater pain, and those who had functional limitations. Seventeen percent of depressed respondents had considered suicide in the past 12 months; an additional 30% had considered suicide at an earlier time. Only 40% of depressed individuals were using antidepressants. Individuals with IBD and similar bowel disorders experience rates of depression that are triple those of the general population. It is important for clinicians to assess depression and suicidal ideation among their patients with active IBD symptoms, particularly among those reporting moderate to severe pain.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".