Controversies Revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although mental health concerns are known to occur commonly for those with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), the nature of this comorbid relationship has not been systematically reviewed to date. A review in 2007 identified 5 controversies regarding anxiety/depression rates and various comparators between and within IBD. We aimed to systematically analyze and critique the current evidence regarding this comorbidity, providing an update to the 5 controversies. METHODS: Ebscohost Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and PsychINFO were searched between 2005 and 2014 using systematic review methodology. Controlled quantitative studies examining either symptoms or diagnoses of anxiety and depression in IBD were included in the review, with study quality assessed using a scale developed a priori to evaluate observational research. RESULTS: (1) IBD versus healthy controls (pooled mean proportions) (n = 13 studies): anxiety 19.1% versus 9.6%, depression 21.2% versus 13.4%; (2) IBD inactive versus IBD active disease (n = 26): anxiety 28.2% versus 66.4%, depression 19.9% versus 34.7%; (3) ulcerative colitis versus Crohn's disease (n = 28): anxiety 31% versus 37%, depression 22% versus 24.4%; (4) IBD versus other chronic medical conditions (n = 17): anxiety 41.9% versus 48.2%, depression 14.5% versus 28.4%; (5) onset of anxiety/depression before or after IBD onset (n = 2): adults more likely to develop anxiety/depression before IBD onset, but a substantial proportion develops depression after onset; an increased risk for children of developing anxiety/depression after IBD onset. CONCLUSIONS: The high rates of anxiety and depression for those with IBD, particularly when disease is active, warrant a systemic approach to screening and treatment.
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 | 0.071 | 0.205 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
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".