Irritable bowel syndrome is underdiagnosed and ineffectively managed among endurance athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lower gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms are common among endurance athletes and can impair performance. Symptom characteristics are similar to irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). No previous research has examined IBS diagnosis (medically or by diagnostic criteria) within this population. The objectives of this study were to determine the prevalence of IBS among endurance athletes and examine their GI symptom management strategies. A previously validated, online questionnaire assessed IBS diagnosis, the meeting of IBS diagnostic criteria (Rome III or Manning), general GI symptoms, and symptom mitigation strategies of endurance athletes. The questionnaire was distributed to United States athletes completing a marathon, ultra-marathon, half-distance triathlon, or full-distance triathlon. Medically diagnosed IBS was reported by 2.8% of endurance athletes. The total prevalence of IBS (n = 430) was 9.8% (medical diagnosis and Rome III). Athletes with IBS experienced more frequent symptoms during exercise as well as at rest; however, only 47.6% had consulted a medical professional. Over 56% of athletes experienced at least 1 symptom sometimes, often, or always during training and competition and 18.6% had symptoms that sometimes or often interrupted/prevented training. Almost half (45.8%) of athletes and 80.0% of athletes with IBS reported trying nutritional modifications to help ease symptoms while 20.6% and 52.4% used over-the-counter medications, respectively. Novelty Most endurance athletes who suffer from IBS are undiagnosed, while even more experience GI symptoms but do not fit diagnostic criteria. Despite using various symptom management methods, endurance athletes are still experiencing symptoms and could potentially benefit from current IBS-mitigating strategies.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".