COPING STRATEGIES (CS) IN IBS AND IBD DIFFER FROM CONTROLS BUT NOT EACH OTHER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: CS are used to manage conflict and illness and can have both adaptive or maladaptive effects on health status. Perceived availability and quality of social support (SS) also influences health status. CS and SS are not well studied in IBS. We evaluated CS, SS and psychiatric distress in patients with IBS, IBD and controls. Methods: Consec. pts with RomeII IBS or IBD were recruited from clinic and ctrls were recruited by advertisement. Subjs completed the Ways of Coping Questionnaire, a validated instrument measuring 8 common CSs. Subj s also completed the Interpersonal Support Evaluation (ISEL; a measure of perceived availability and quality of social support), SCL-90-R (SCL; a measure of psychiatric distress), IBS and IBD-QOL, and two measures of somatization: Somatosensory Amplification Scale (SSAS) and 20-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS). Comparisons across groups were made by ANOVA with Bonferroni's posttest. Results: 55 ctrls, 57 IBS and 30 IBD pts were studied. No differences existed forage or sex. IBS and IBD pts demonstrated significantly greaterpsychiatric distress (SCL) and somatization (SSAS but not TAS) than ctrls but did not differ from one another. For IBD pts, IBD-QOL and IBS-QOL were highly correlated (r = 0.77; p <0.001). IBS-QOL scores did not differ btwn IBS and IBD groups sugesting similar symptom impact. ISEL scores did not differ btwn IBS, IBD and ctrl groups. Total scores for all CS did not differ btwn ctrls, IBD and IBS. Planful problem solving was the dominant CS endorsed by ctrls. Compared with ctrls, both IBS and IBD relied significantly less upon planful problem solving and positive reappraisal and more upon escape-avoidance strategies than did ctrls (figure).FigureConclusions: IBS and IBD pts did not differ from ctrls with respect to social support but did differ with respect to psychiatric distress, somatization and CS. IBS and IBD pts did not differ from each other wth respect to CS suggesting that observed differences in CS strategies reflect illness behavior rather than a disorder-specific process. [figure 1]
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".