Anxiety, depression and distress among irritable bowel syndrome and their subtypes: An epidemiological population based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Psychiatric disorders are common in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We conducted this study to investigate the relationship of IBS and their subtypes with some of psychological factors. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed among 4763 staff of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences in 2011. Modified ROME III questionnaire and Talley Bowel Disease Questionnaire were used to evaluate IBS symptoms. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and 12-item General Health Questionnaire were utilized to assess anxiety, depression and psychological distress. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association of psychological states and IBS in the total subject and both genders. Results: About, 4763 participants with mean age 36/58 ± 8/09 were included the 2106 males and 2657 females. Three thousand and seven hundred and seventy-six (81.2%) and 2650 (57.2%) participants were married and graduated respectively. Subtype analysis of IBS and its relationship with anxiety, depression and distress comparing the two genders can be observed that: IBS and clinically-significant IBS have higher anxiety, depression symptoms, and distress than the subject without IBS ( P < 0.001). Women with IBS, have higher scores than men ( P < 0.001). Compared to other subtypes, mixed IBS subtype has a higher anxiety, depression, and distress score. Conclusion: A high prevalence of anxiety, depression symptoms and distress in our subjects emphasize the importance of the psychological evaluation of the patients with IBS, in order to better management of the patients and may also help to reduce the burden of health care costs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".