The association between meal and snack frequency and irritable bowel syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The relationship between daily meal and snack frequency with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) was less investigated in the literature. We aimed to evaluate this association with IBS symptoms. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. SETTING: This investigation was performed in Isfahan, a large province in the centre of Iran. Individuals were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire to quantify the numbers of daily main meals (one, two or three), snacks (never, 1-2, 3-5 or >5) and the total of them (<3, 3-5, 6-7 or ≥8). IBS and its subtypes were diagnosed according to Rome Ш criteria. PARTICIPANTS: General adults (n 4669, 2063 men and 2606 women). RESULTS: The prevalence of IBS was 18·6 % in males and 24·1 % in females. Individuals consuming three main meals had 30 % decreased risk of IBS (OR 0·70, 95 % CI 0·52, 0·94) compared with those with one main meal in the crude model. After adjustments for all potential confounders this relation disappeared (OR 0·67, 95 % CI 0·43, 1·03). Gender-specified analysis revealed that women consuming three main meals per day had 32 % decreased likelihood of having IBS symptoms compared with one daily main meal takers (OR 0·68, 95 % CI 0·47, 0·99). This relation remained significant after adjustment for potential confounders (OR 0·56, 95 % CI 0·36, 0·89). A decreased likelihood of IBS in the highest category of main meal consumption compared with the lowest one was found in obese or overweight subjects (OR 0·54, 95 % CI 0·32, 0·91), after adjustment for all confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggested that there was no significant relation between main meal or snack frequency and IBS in Iranian adults, but a small inverse association was found among females and overweight/obese individuals in subgroup analysis. Further prospective studies are needed confirming these associations.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".