Functional Dyspepsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Rome criteria have been introduced to create order in the heterogeneity of functional dyspepsia. The applicability of these symptom-based classification systems remains controversial. GOAL: To evaluate the successive Rome criteria for functional dyspepsia in a large pool of patients with endoscopically verified functional dyspepsia. STUDY: Patients referred to a secondary care district hospital were asked to fill out a questionnaire on gastrointestinal symptoms 2 weeks before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients were classified according to the Rome I, II, and III criteria for functional dyspepsia. RESULTS: Nine hundred and twelve (70%) patients had no organic disorder explaining their symptoms. According to the Rome I, II, and III criteria, 371 (41%), 735 (81%), and 551 (60%) of these patients had functional dyspepsia, respectively. Twenty-five percent of patients had functional dyspepsia according to all 3 Rome criteria, whereas 15% was not classifiable at all. Forty-four percent and 42% of the patients, respectively, had epigastric pain syndrome and postprandial distress syndrome according to the Rome III criteria; however, 26% of all patients met both criteria and 40% was not classified at all. CONCLUSIONS: The symptom-based Rome classification of functional dyspepsia does not lead to an easily applicable and consistent system that is useful in clinical practice or scientific research.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".