IBD and Psychologic Counseling: Our Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) affect the quality of life (QoL) of the patients and at the same time, the nervous system can affect the immunity. Aim of the study was to assess the effect of counseling on QoL of IBD patients. Methods: 15 patients (M/F 6/9, mean age 38,6 years, age range 21-56) with different disease activity index were subjected to counseling every other week for one year. A psychotherapist-psychologist managed the sessions to aid the communication, the growth of personal resources and reaction's means in the patient's groups. In the beginning, patients filled in tests to assess the state anxiety (STAI-X1; VN< 40), the trait anxiety (STAI-X2; VN<42), the depression state (Beck Depression Inventory test BDI; VN<12), the pain (McGill-Melzack; VN<22), the state of health (1 excellent, 2 very good, 3 good, 4 passable, 5 poor; VN<3) and pain incidence (0 no pain, 1 mild, 2 moderate, 3 medium, 4 severe). The same tests were re-filled in after one year. Results: The table report the test results. Statistical analysis was calculated by t-student test; P-value <0.05 were considered statistically significant. The small number of patients did't allow to achieve a statistical significance, but all analyzed parameters show a positive trend. Conclusion: In spite of the case record's limits, the data suggest that psychologic counseling yields a positive effect on IBD patient QoL. Further studies are required with proper case record and better analysis of different disease pattern.Table: Results
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".