Post‐infectious IBS: Defining its clinical features and prognosis using an internet‐based survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Gastrointestinal infection is an important risk factor for developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Our aim was to characterise post‐infectious IBS (PI‐IBS) compared to other IBS patients. Methods An internet survey of IBS patients using Rome III diagnostic questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Patient Health Questionnaire‐12 Somatic Symptom (PHQ12‐SS) scale score documenting the mode of onset was conducted. Results A total of 7811 participants (63.2% female), of whom 1004 (13.3%) met criteria for PI‐IBS, were studied. Seventy per cent of PI‐IBS patients described sudden onset, 35% onset while travelling, 49.6% vomiting, 49.9% fever and 20.3% bloody diarrhoea. Compared to other IBS individuals, PI‐IBS was significantly associated with living in Northern Europe and North America, having a hysterectomy, not having an appendicectomy, higher PHQ12‐SS score and having more than one toilet in the family home. PI‐IBS patients had more frequent stools. At one year recovery rate in the PI‐IBS and non‐PI‐IBS group was 19.7% and 22.2%, p = 0.15. Recovery rates were lower for females (20.7%) vs males (38.8%), those with somatisation (23.0%) vs those without (33.2%) and those living in North America or Northern Europe (21.1%) vs living elsewhere (33.9%) p ≤ 0.001. Conclusion PI‐IBS accounts for around 13% of all IBS in this internet sample, with some distinctive features but a similar prognosis to the remainder.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".