MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910908809 · doi:10.1111/nmo.13549

General and abdominal obesity in relation to the prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome

2019· article· en· W2910908809 on OpenAlexaff
Negin Akhondi, Sahar Memar Montazerin, Sanaz Soltani, Parvane Saneei, Ammar Hassanzadeh Keshteli, Ahmad Esmaillzadeh, Peyman Adibi

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurogastroenterology & Motility · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersIsfahan University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsMedicineIrritable bowel syndromeOverweightObesityAbdominal obesityAbdominal painPopulationAnthropometryInternal medicineCross-sectional studyBody mass indexDefecationGastroenterologyMetabolic syndromeEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Earlier studies on the obesity-IBS association have mostly been reported from Western nations, and limited data are available in this regard from developing countries. This study was performed to examine the association of general and abdominal obesity with Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in a Middle Eastern population. METHODS: , respectively. Also, we used WC measurements to define the three categories of normal (<94 cm in men <80 cm in women), abdominal overweight (94 ≤ WC < 102 in men and 80 ≤ WC < 88 in women), and abdominal obesity (WC ≥ 102 cm in men and WC ≥ 88 cm in women). Assessment of different GI symptoms including those related to IBS was done using a validated Persian version of the Rome III questionnaire. IBS was defined as the presence of recurrent abdominal pain or discomfort at least sometimes in the last 3 months associated with 2 or more of the following features: improvement with defecation, pain onset associated with a change in frequency of stool, and pain onset associated with a change in form (appearance) of stool. KEY RESULTS: Irritable bowel syndrome was more prevalent among individuals with abdominal obesity compared with normal subjects (23.8% vs 19%). Neither in crude nor in adjusted models, we found any significant association between overweight and obesity and IBS [for overweight: OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.66-1.36 and for obesity: OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.85-1.31]. We observed a significant positive association between abdominally overweight and IBS in crude model (OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.09-1.60); however, this association became non-significant after adjustment for potential confounders (OR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.82-1.44). Across BMI categories, neither in crude nor in adjusted models, we did not find any significant association between overweight (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.62-1.27), obesity (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.58-1.87), and abdominal pain severity. Abdominal overweight (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.65-1.40) and obesity (OR: 1.61, 95% CI: 0.67-1.63) were not associated with abdominal pain severity. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: It is concluded that general or abdominal obesity was not associated with odds of IBS. Future longitudinal studies are needed to clarify the association between obesity and IBS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations39
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurogastroenterology & MotilitySame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207