Gender Differences in Psychologic Parameters in Functional Dyspepsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Past studies have demonstrated an association between functional dyspepsia (FD) and psychosocial and psychiatric co-morbidities. Little information exists on gender differences in FD. The purpose of this study was to examine whether psychological factors, somatic symptoms, sleep quality, and quality of life in patients with FD could discriminate between men and women. Methods: The Functional Dyspepsia Treatment Trial (FDTT) is a multicenter, international, randomized clinical trial evaluating the effects of antidepressants on FD symptoms in patients. Baseline data, from 147 patients (117 females) enrolled in the trial, were used. Participants met Rome III criteria for FD with negative endoscopy, no history of depression or use of antidepressants, and no major co-morbidities. At baseline, participants completed validated questionnaires related to psychological profiles; Profile of Mood States (POMS), Symptom Checklist -90 R (SCL-90), Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Somatic Symptom Checklist (SSC), quality of life (SF-36), pain visual analogue scales (VAS) and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Multiple variable logistic regression was used to identify significant independent predictors in women vs. men. Results: Men were slightly older (mean age of 47.5 years [95% CI 41.6-53.4]) than women (mean age of 44.1 [95% CI 44.5-47.3 ]). The SSC score and the SCL-90 Global Severity Index (GSI) were the most significant predictors, while anxiety, mood states, sleep quality, or quality of life did not have significant independent predictive value (Table).Table: No Caption available.Conclusion: Women reported higher SSC scores. Other psychological factors, quality of life and sleep did not discriminate between genders. Why the GSI score in men is higher than women when the SSC score is known needs further study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".