Subgroups of IBS patients are characterized by specific, reproducible profiles of GI and non‐GI symptoms and report differences in healthcare utilization: A population‐based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In a previous clinical sample of IBS patients, subgroups characterized by profiles of GI and non-GI symptoms were identified. We aimed to replicate these subgroups and symptom associations in participants fulfilling IBS diagnostic criteria from a population-based study and relate them to healthcare utilization. METHODS: An Internet-based health survey was completed by general population adults from United States, Canada, and UK. Respondents fulfilling IBS diagnosis (Rome III and IV) were analyzed for latent subgroups using Gaussian mixture model analysis. Symptom measures were derived from validated questionnaires: IBS-related GI symptoms (Rome IV), extraintestinal somatic symptoms (PHQ-12), and psychological symptoms (SF-8). KEY RESULTS: A total of 637 respondents fulfilled Rome III criteria (average age 46 years, range 18-87, 66% females) and 341 Rome IV criteria (average age 44, range 18-77, 64% female) for IBS. Seven subgroups were identified in the Rome III cohort, characterized by profiles of GI symptoms (constipation-related, diarrhea-related, and mixed, respectively), and further distinguished by the presence or absence of non-GI comorbidities. The Rome IV cohort showed five similar but less distinct subgroups with a preponderance of mixed symptom profiles. Higher severity of non-GI comorbidities was associated with more frequent healthcare visits and medication usage. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: In line with previous findings in a clinical IBS cohort, we were able to identify population-based subgroups characterized by a combination of GI symptoms with the additional distinction made by varying severity of non-GI symptoms and with differences in healthcare utilization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".