General and abdominal obesity in relation to the prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".