Measuring Severity of Anxiety and Depression in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have indicated that anxiety and depression are significant contributors to reporting of increased disease activity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Thus, for the appropriate clinical management of these patients, it is important that gastroenterologists are able to recognize these conditions. This study aimed to examine the level of agreement between gastroenterologists and patients with IBD for the presence of clinically significant anxiety and depression. METHODS: Before consultation, patients completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Survey. After the consultation, the gastroenterologist recorded whether they believed the patient was anxious and depressed and if so, whether any further action had been taken. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients participated in this study, with a response rate of 88%. Self-reported questionnaires indicated that 31% and 11% of patients were identified as probable for having anxiety and depression, respectively. The level of agreement between the patient and gastroenterologist as to the presence of anxiety or depression was fair to moderate (kappa statistic 0.32 and 0.41, respectively). In only 50% of cases was further action taken by gastroenterologists during consultation for distressed patients, mostly in the form of a patient discussion. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement between gastroenterologists and IBD patients regarding the presence of clinically significant anxiety or depression was low, with no further action taken after consultation for 50% of patients who were identified by gastroenterologists as being anxious or depressed. This study highlights the need for educating gastroenterologists to improve their ability to identify IBD patient distress.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".