Water consumption and prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome among adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: No previous study examined the association between whole-day water intake and odds of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We examined the association between whole-day water intake and odds of IBS in a large sample of Iranian adults. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted among 4763 adults in Isfahan, Iran. Daily water intake was assessed using a pre-tested questionnaire by asking questions about the average number of glasses of water consumed in a day. IBS was assessed and defined using a modified Persian version of Rome III questionnaire. RESULTS: After taking potential confounders into account, no significant association between water consumption and odds of IBS was seen (OR: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.74-1.78). We observed that participants who were taking >8 glasses/d of water had greater odds of IBS-M in comparison to those who consumed <2 glasses daily (OR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.01-4.22). No significant association was observed between water intake and odds of IBS in either gender as well [for men: OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.59-2.24 and for women: OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.62-2.12]. By BMI status, no significant association was observed between whole day water intake and odds of IBS among normal weight (BMI<25 kg/m2) or overweight and obese people (BMI≥25 kg/m2). CONCLUSION: We found that whole-day water intake was not associated with odds of IBS. A significant association between consumption of >8 glasses of water per day and odds of IBS-M was observed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".