A Comparison of the Prevalence of Anxiety and Depression Between Uncomplicated and Complex IBD Patient Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our study aimed to assess the physical and mental health aspects and quality of life of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We were interested in determining whether IBD patients with complex disease states had higher rates of anxiety and depression than those without complications. Complex and uncomplicated IBD patients were assessed using a demographic questionnaire, Short Form-12 (SF-12), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Complex IBD patients are defined as those specifically having active inflammation, nutritional, and/or surgical issues. All other IBD patients are defined as those with uncomplicated IBD. Analysis of SF-12 scores indicated that Physical Component Summary scores were below average in 71.9% and 56.0% of the complex and uncomplicated patients, respectively (p < .001), whereas Mental Component Summary scores were below average in 65.6% and 45.3% of the complex and uncomplicated patients, respectively (p < .001). HADS scores in the complex and uncomplicated IBD patients indicated that 29.2% and 18.5%, respectively, were anxiety cases (p < .1) and that 32.3% and 15.9%, respectively, were depression cases (p < .001). Efforts should be focused on the identification and management of anxiety and depression in complex IBD patients, as they may have higher likelihoods of anxiety and depression and lower quality of life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".