Prevalence of organic disease at colonoscopy in patients with symptoms compatible with irritable bowel syndrome: cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Guidelines for the management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) encourage a positive diagnosis, but some evidence suggests organic disease may be missed unless investigations are performed. We examined yield of colonoscopy in a cohort of secondary care patients meeting criteria for IBS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Demographic data, symptoms and findings at colonoscopy were recorded prospectively in consecutive, unselected adults with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms compatible with IBS according to the Rome III criteria. Prevalence of organic GI disease was compared between those meeting criteria for IBS, according to the presence or absence of co-existent alarm features, and by IBS subtype. RESULTS: A total of 559 patients met Rome III criteria for IBS, of whom 423 reported ≥1 alarm feature and 136 none. There was a significantly higher prevalence of organic GI disease among those reporting alarm features (117 [27.7%]), compared with those without (21 [15.4%]) (p = 0.002). In the latter group of 136 patients, Crohn's disease was the commonest finding (10 [7.4%] subjects), followed by coeliac disease (4 [2.9%] subjects), and microscopic colitis (3 [2.2%] subjects). Regardless of presence or absence of alarm features, patients with constipation-predominant IBS were less likely to exhibit organic GI disease than those with diarrhea-predominant or mixed IBS (12.7% vs. 32.1% and 23.8%, p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: One in six patients with symptoms compatible with IBS without alarm features in this selected group exhibited organic GI disease following investigation. Assessment of alarm features in a comprehensive history is vital to reduce diagnostic uncertainty that can surround 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".