MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789241224 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy008.110

A109 BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL MODEL OF IBD: CHANGE IN PAIN PHENOTYPES AFFECTS PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES

2018· article· en· W2789241224 on OpenAlexaff
Dean A. Tripp, Phylicia Verreault, Mark J. Ropeleski, Matthew Woo, Abi Muere, Michael Beyak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiopsychosocial modelPain catastrophizingPsychosocialPhysical therapyDepression (economics)Chronic painQuality of life (healthcare)Psychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IBD is a chronic disease in which patients often experience pain. This pain may be located in sites related to the gut, or regions outside the bowel. Comorbid pain may exacerbate the impact of the disease on QoL. Our previous work demonstrated an association between psychosocial variables (e.g., depression, catastrophizing, QoL) and different pain phenotypes. The objective of this study was to evaluate the changes in pain phenotypes and how these changes related to levels of depression, catastrophizing and QoL across three time points (i.e., baseline, 6-month, and 1-year). IBD patients seen in an outpatient clinic (n = 118) completed questionnaires including body pain map, demographics, pain, depression, catastrophizing, and QoL. Patients were pain phenotyped as IBD0 if they did not endorse any pain, IBD if they endorsed pain in any area associated with IBD only (i.e., lower abdomen, pelvis and buttocks), or as IBD+ if they endorsed pain in area associated with IBD along with any other area of the body. Change in pain phenotype group from baseline to 1-year follow-up was used to categorize patients (e.g. IBD0 to IBD, IBD0 to IBD+, etc. or stable within group). Repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for depression, catastrophizing and QoL with Change Groups as between subject factors. 118 participants completed the 3 time points, 17 participants reported pain only in areas not associated with IBD and were excluded. Patients were 64.4% female (M age = 45.07 [SD = 15.26]). 68/101 participants stayed in their respective pain phenotype groups (11 IBD0, 22 IBD, 35 IBD+). 3 transferred to more severe phenotype (IBD to IBD+), 7 transferred to less severe phenotype (IBD+ to IBD), 8 who experience no pain at baseline switched to a more severe phenotype (4 IBD, 4 IBD+), and 15 transferred from any pain phenotype to a no pain phenotype (IBD or IBD+ to IBD0). There were significant differences in depression and QoL scores across Change Groups, but not for catastrophizing. Less severe phenotypes displayed lower depression scores and higher QoL scores. Participants transferring to more severe phenotypes (i.e., IBD0 to IBD, IBD to IBD+) had higher depression and lower QoL scores. Participants transferring to a less severe phenotype (i.e., IBD+ to IBD, IBD to IBD0) had lower depression and higher QoL scores. There was a significant interaction of Change Group and time for QoL; switching from IBD to IBD+ did not impact QoL, but switching from IBD+ to IBD significantly improved participants’ QoL. This study demonstrates the negative impact of pain on patient depression and QoL in IBD over time. The findings suggest that clinicians should carefully consider comorbid pain in patients with IBD as it affects how a patient copes with the disease; change to a lower pain phenotype may improve patient depression and QoL. CCC

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicPain Management and Placebo EffectFrench-language works237,207