A self help guidebook reduced primary care consultations in irritable bowel syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robinson A, Lee V, Kennedy A, et al. A randomised controlled trial of self-help interventions in patients with a primary care diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome. Gut 2006;55:643–8. [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q In patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), does a self help intervention in the form of a guidebook or group meetings reduce consultation rates and symptom severity? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★★☆ IM/Ambulatory care ★★★★★☆☆ Gastroenterology ★★★★★☆☆ ### ![Graphic][3]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Allocation: concealed.* ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Blinding: unblinded.* ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Follow up period: 1 year. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Setting: 54 general practices in the UK. ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Patients: 420 patients ⩾18 years of age (mean age 40 y, 89% women) who had IBS diagnosed by a general practitioner or specialist and had consulted their general practitioner with gastrointestinal symptoms at least once in the past year. Patients unable to read or understand English were excluded. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Intervention: self help guidebook† containing information on lifestyle, diet, and drug and alternative treatments with current evidence and patients’ experiences (n = 141); guidebook plus an invitation to participate in a 2 hour self help group meeting with 8–12 patients facilitated by the … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DGut%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1136%252Fgut.2004.062901%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16099784%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=gutjnl&resid=55/5/643&atom=%2Febmed%2F11%2F6%2F179.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".