Prevalence of Anxiety and Depression in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background . Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients are not routinely screened for depression and anxiety despite knowledge of an increased prevalence in people with chronic disease and negative effects on quality of life. Methods. Prevalence of anxiety and depression was assessed in IBD outpatients through retrospective chart review. The presence of anxiety and/or depression was determined using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 self-report questionnaires or by diagnosis through psychiatric interview. Patient demographics, disease characteristics, and medication information were also collected. Multivariable analysis was used to determine associations between patient factors and depression and anxiety. Results. 327 patient charts were reviewed. Rates of depression and anxiety were found to be 25.8% and 21.2%, with 30.3% of patients suffering from depression and/or anxiety. Disease activity was found to be significantly associated with depression and/or anxiety ( p = 0.01 ). Females were more likely to have anxiety ( p = 0.01 ). Conclusion. A significant proportion of IBD patients suffer from depression and/or anxiety. The rates of these mental illnesses would justify screening and referral for psychiatric treatment in clinics treating this population. Patients with active disease are particularly at risk for anxiety and depression.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".