MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PWE-029 Characterisation and Association of Abdominal Pain With Anxiety or Depression in Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Constipation (IBS-C)

2013· article· en· W2615858586 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eamonn M.M. Quigley, Bernard J. Lavins, S. J. Shiff, Kelvin Shi, Xinming Hao, Caroline B. Kurtz, Mark G. Currie, Harvey Schneier, J. Martin Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueGut · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIrritable bowel syndromeHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleAbdominal painDepression (economics)ConstipationAnxietyMcGill Pain QuestionnaireInternal medicineBrief Pain InventoryQuality of life (healthcare)Physical therapyVisual analogue scaleChronic painPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ-2) assesses and characterises pain. It consists of 22 items (rated from 0 = none to 10 = worst possible) in 4 subscales (continuous pain, intermittent pain, neuropathic pain [sensory descriptors], and affective descriptors [emotional aspects of pain, eg cruel/exhausting]). The SF-MPQ-2 has not yet been validated in abdominal pain and, therefore, its use in functional gastrointestinal disorders like IBS is limited. Also, little is known about pain quality in IBS. We used the SF-MPQ-2 to characterise baseline abdominal pain in IBS-C and to determine whether subscale scores were associated with significant baseline anxiety or depression. Methods Over a 2-wk baseline period in 2 Phase 3 trials of linaclotide (LIN), patients (pts) with IBS-C (Rome II criteria; N = 1523) rated daily their worst abdominal pain over the past 24 h on an 11-point scale (0 = none, 10 = very severe) and completed the SF-MPQ-2. Summary statistics were calculated for each SF-MPQ-2 item and subscale. Pts were grouped by their highest-scored pain subscale and the pain subscale reported by the highest % of pts was defined as the predominant pain type. Association of each subscale with baseline abdominal pain score was determined by ANCOVA. Baseline anxiety and depression were assessed on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A and HADS-D); pts were categorised as normal/borderline (0–10) or abnormal (11–21). Association of each subscale with abnormal HADS was analysed by logistic regression. Results Continuous pain was the predominant pain type (77% of pts); the item with the highest average score in this subscale was cramping pain. Baseline abdominal pain score was significantly associated with McGill continuous pain (p < 0.0001), intermittent pain (p = 0.004) and affective descriptors (p = 0.012), but not with neuropathic pain (p = 0.526). Only the affective descriptors subscale was significantly associated with abnormal HADS score (Table). Abstract PWE-029 Table Odds ratio Abnormal HADS Pain subscale Point estimate 95% CI p a HADS-A Continuous 1.04 0.96, 1.13 0.35 Intermittent 0.96 0.89, 1.04 0.33 Neuropathic 1.00 0.92, 1.09 0.99 Affective descriptors 1.15 1.07, 1.23 < 0.0001 HADS-D Continuous 1.11 0.94, 1.30 0.23 Intermittent 0.92 0.80, 1.05 0.21 Neuropathic 1.12 0.97, 1.29 0.12 Affective descriptors 1.24 1.10, 1.41 < 0.001 a Wald χ 2 test Conclusion These data indicate that continuous pain is predominant in IBS-C and that anxiety and depression are related to the emotional response to pain, not to pain itself. Support: Ironwood Pharmaceuticals Inc & Forest Laboratories Inc. Editing: CMC funded by Almirall Disclosure of Interest E. Quigley Speaker bureau with: Danone, Janssen, Procter and Gamble, sanofi-aventis, Shire and Yakult, Conflict with: Advisory boards for Almirall, Ironwood, Janssen, Norgine, Salix and Shire/Movetis, B. Lavins Shareholder of: Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Employee of: Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, S. Shiff Sharehol

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.176 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGutSame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207