Sociodemographics, General Health, and Psychologic Health in Uninvestigated Dyspepsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GOALS: To compare the dyspepsia severity, general health, and psychologic health of patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia presenting in private and public settings. STUDY: Patients in this cross-sectional study were recruited from the Houston Veterans Administration (VA) General Medicine Outpatient Clinic and from the nearby private practice of a family physician. To be included, patients had to be at least 18 years of age and had to report a history of dyspepsia (epigastric discomfort) without alarm of at least 1 week's duration. Clinical information was obtained. Dyspepsia severity was measured using dyspepsia-related health scales, general health was measured using the Short Form 36, and psychologic health was measured using six scales. RESULTS: The authors enrolled 159 patients (59 VA). There were no differences in VA and private patients in most of the clinical characteristics related to dyspepsia. Compared with the private patients, the VA patients had worse scores on all Short Form 36 subscales, had lower expectations for treatment outcome, were more depressed, and had less optimism about life. CONCLUSIONS: Burden of illness and psychologic factors such as patient expectations are known to have important effects on patient outcomes. Striking differences in these factors exist in patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia seen in private and public settings. In the future, these factors must be taken into account both in conducting studies in dyspepsia and in interpreting the results for different practice settings.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".