A230 GAPS IN IDENTIFYING FOOD-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE AND HYPERVIGILANCE IN AT-RISK INDIVIDUALS WITH IBD: REVIEW OF VALIDATED SCREENING TOOLS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has a profound impact on psychosocial aspects of food and nutrition, thereby affecting food-related quality of life (QoL). While there is literature on associated prevalence of increased anxiety in individuals with IBD, there is limited data on its contribution to hypervigilance and orthorexia with food intake. Many patients with IBD have strong beliefs about dietary symptom triggers, which can lead to avoidance behaviors and decreased nutrient intake. This can exacerbate malnutrition and disordered eating, as well as increase disease-related stress and negatively impact coping. While there are validated scales evaluating anxiety-related, QoL-related and food-related behaviors in IBD, a combined screening tool to assess this comorbid axis is not well described. Aims To conduct a systematic review of existing literature in order to inform practice and facilitate development of an effective food-related hypervigilance and QoL evaluation in IBD patients Methods The literature was systematically searched through September 2019, using an electronic database querying Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO. We searched original articles describing development, validation and measurement properties for screening tools on anxiety, QoL and food-related behaviors in IBD from 1975 to 2018. The primary outcome of interest was to evaluate the current measurements of the validated tools to identify whether a screening tool highlighting all above parameters exists for patients with IBD. Results Initial database search resulted in 5548 articles. After screening titles and abstracts, 168 were included. After full text review and deduplication, 23 validated scales were identified for use in IBD patients with respect to measuring anxiety, health-related QoL and food-related behaviors. There was substantial heterogeneity in IBD populations using the assessment tools (adult vs. pediatric, CD vs. UC, inpatient vs. outpatient). The breakdown of studies identified: 2 studies (8.6%) evaluated QoL and anxiety, 2 studies (8.6%) evaluated QoL and food-related behaviors. The remainder of studies individually assessed QoL, anxiety and food-related behaviors (47.8%, 26% and 8.6% respectively). None of the tools performed satisfactory to establish all three measurements in individuals with IBD. Conclusions Recent evidence suggests the presence of dietary hypervigilance in individuals with chronic GI conditions potentially leading to food restrictive behaviors impacting QoL. Screening models evaluating multivariable relations of anxiety in food-related behaviors and QoL in IBD is lacking. Efforts should be made to develop and validate a multi-assessment screening tool to aid in early identification of this prevalence in IBD patients to facilitate improved management outcomes. Funding Agencies None
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 | 0.016 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".