Association Between Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Risk of Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Parkinson's disease (PD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are respectively one of the most common neurodegenerative diseases and functional bowel diseases in the world. Recent studies suggest that patients with IBS seem to have a higher risk of PD, which conflicts with the result of previous meta-analysis. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate all available evidence, in order to clarify the association between PD and IBS. Methods: Two reviewers independently searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library on April 25, 2021 to identify all records that explore the association between IBS and PD. All reports that clearly define PD and IBS and analyze the relationship between the two were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias of included studies. Results: Five studies from four articles involving 2,044,110 subjects were included in this analysis. The pooled results demonstrated a significant association between PD and IBS (1.48; 95% CI: 1.35–1.62, P < 0.001), with subtle heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.585). The association was observed across genders and increased with age. However, the available evidence cannot allow a reliable analysis of the causal relationship between IBS and PD. Conclusion: This study demonstrates a higher risk of PD among subjects with IBS. Future studies are required to further clarify the causation and underlying mechanism of the association.
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 | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".