The Relationship Between Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety and Disease Activity in IBD Over Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BRACKGROUND: We aimed to examine associations between elevated symptoms of depression and anxiety and disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Previous findings have been inconsistent and have not accounted for variability in the courses of these conditions over time. METHODS: We followed 247 participants with IBD (153 Crohn's disease [CD], 94 ulcerative colitis [UC]) for 3 years. Annually, participants underwent an abdominal examination, reported therapies used for IBD, and completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) questionnaire. We evaluated associations of elevated symptoms (scores ≥11) of anxiety (HADS-A) and depression (HADS-D) with the presence of active IBD as measured using the Powell Tuck Index for UC and the Harvey-Bradshaw Disease Activity Index for CD. We employed logistic regression with generalized estimating equations, simultaneously estimating between-person and within-person effects. RESULTS: Of 247 participants, 15 (6.1%) had elevated symptoms of depression (HADS-D ≥11) at enrollment, 41 (16.6%) had elevated symptoms of anxiety (HADS-A ≥11), and 101 (40.9%) had active IBD. On average, individuals with elevated symptoms of depression (odds ratio [OR], 6.27; 95% CI, 1.39-28.2) and anxiety (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.01-4.66) had increased odds of active IBD. Within individuals, elevations in symptoms of depression over time were associated with increased odds of active IBD (OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.15-6.34), but elevated symptoms of anxiety were not. After adjustment for covariates (including disease activity), elevated symptoms of depression were also associated with increased odds of biologic therapy use (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.02-4.00). CONCLUSION: Symptoms of depression and anxiety are associated with disease activity in IBD over time. Reducing these symptoms should be incorporated into the management of IBD.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".