The relationship between abdominal pain and emotional wellbeing in children and adolescents in the Raine Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abdominal pain is a common reason for medical visits. We examined the prevalence, gastrointestinal, and emotional significance of abdominal pain in a population-based cohort serially followed up from birth to 17 years. Children and adolescents from Generation 2 of the Raine Study participated in comprehensive cross-sectional assessments at ages 2, 5, 8, 10, 14 and 17 years. At 17 years, medical history, general health, gastrointestinal symptoms, medications, health practitioner attendance, and self-rated unhappiness were recorded. Longitudinal data regarding abdominal pain or unhappiness, from serial questionnaires, were analysed to identify factors associated with abdominal pain and adverse emotional health at age 17 years. Females experienced more abdominal pain than males at all ages (p < 0.05). Seventeen-year-old adolescents with abdominal pain reported a higher prevalence of depression, anxiety, being bullied at school, and poorer health status than those without abdominal pain (p < 0.05 for all). Abdominal pain and unhappiness during childhood and mid-adolescence were prospectively associated with recurrent abdominal pain, anxiety, depression and unhappiness during late adolescence (p < 0.05 for all). In conclusion, abdominal pain in children and adolescents associates with depression, anxiety, being bullied, unhappiness and reduced overall health-rating during adolescence. Awareness of these factors may guide management decisions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".