A147 QUALITY OF LIFE IN PATIENTS WITH IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROME WITH CONSTIPATION (IBS-C) FOLLOWING 60 DAYS TREATMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional diseases, like IBS, lead to considerably poor quality of life (QoL). It is not known if current management strategies for IBS-constipation (IBS-C) provide changes in patient-reported QoL. To assess the influence of management practices on QoL in patients with IBS-C Patients with confirmed diagnosis of IBS-C were recruited for this study from Foothills Medical Centre and South Health Campus over a period of 2 years. Recruitment was followed by an invitation to complete a validated IBS QoL questionnaire, symptoms questionnaire and medications questionnaire on initiation and at 60 days. Eleven patients (ten females and one male), with an average age of 48, were recruited. There was a significant improvement in the total QoL scores at 60 days compared to baseline (pairwise t-test, p-value <0.05). Five of the eleven patients had clinically relevant improvement (>14-point) in their scores. The 34-part QoL is used to calculate 9 subscale scores and overall QoL scores. Figure 1 shows a graph of QoL scores comparing baseline and 60 days QoL scores. Tables 1 and 2 shows statistical analyses of the subscales at baseline and 60 days. A Pearson’s r analysis between change in symptoms and change in QoL scores revealed a strong positive correlation (r = 0.74) for the change in severity of IBS symptoms to change in QoL and moderate positive correlation (r=0.65) for a reduction in pain to change in QoL (p <0.05). Nine out of eleven (82%) patients were managed using Linaclotide, and eight out of eleven (73%) using other laxatives (Polyethylene glycol (PEG) 3350/Bisacodyl/Sennosides). Of the eleven patients, six had both Linaclotide and laxatives. Patients recruited to the study had no prior Linaclotide treatment Despite low patient numbers, current management of IBS-C improves overall QoL score in patients treated at 60 days Pairwise t-test comparing baseline and 60 days QoL scores Allergan
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".