Gastroesophageal reflux disease and functional dyspepsia: What is the real burden on health-related quality of life?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction/Objective. Recently published studies have addressed the significant impairment of healthrelated quality of life (HRQoL) in patients suffering from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and functional dyspepsia (FD). To the best of our knowledge, none of the previously published studies have compared the impact of GERD and FD on HRQoL. The aim of the study was to determine the impact of GERD and FD on HRQoL. Methods. The current sample was extrapolated from a large cross-sectional population-based study conducted in primary health care facilities. Primary care physicians and general internists diagnosed GERD according to the Montreal definition for population-based studies. Also, primary care physicians and general internists diagnosed FD based on the Rome III criteria. The Serbian version of the generic self-administered Center for Disease Control and Prevention questionnaire was used. We used the propensity score method to match GERD and FD samples on variables such as age, gender, education, and adherence to therapy. Results. Regarding self-rated health, similar results were obtained from both groups. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention HRQoL questionnaire version 4 further revealed that functional dyspepsia led to greater disturbances of every-day functioning in regard to the criteria of physically healthy, mentally healthy, and activity limitation days. Conclusion. The results of the study have shown significant impairment of HRQoL in both groups, but, surprisingly, patients with FD experienced more limitations to their every-day functioning compared to patients with GERD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".