Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Abdominal pain is a cardinal symptom of Crohn's disease. Patients often use opiates and cannabis to assuage pain when standard and biologic medication does not produce adequate relief. Psychological stress is known to accentuate the individual's perception of pain. We found that a program of cognitive behavioral and mindfulness-based stress reduction (COBMINDEX) diminishes psychological stress in patients with Crohn's disease. 1 It was therefore of interest to perform an ad hoc analysis to examine whether COBMINDEX could reduce pain in these patients. Aims & Methods: We performed a double-blind trial of COBMINDEX in mild/moderately active Crohn's disease patients who were randomized to COBMINDEX or waitlist controls. Patients were assessed at study entry (time T1) and again at 3 months (T2). At T1 and T2 a clinician completed the Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI) and patients filled in the Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (SIBDQ), MOS 12-Item Short Form Survey Instrument Physical Health (SF-12 PH), and EuroQual 5-Dimensional Questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L). COBMINDEX was taught by specially trained social workers using a one-on-one internet platform between T1 and T2; daily self-practice by the patients was required. Waitlist patients remained on follow-up only. Pain frequency and severity at T1 and T2 were compared between COBMINDEX and waitlist patients. For the analysis the range of responses to the pain questions in HBI (abdominal pain the previous day, 4 responses), SIBDQ (abdominal pain in last 4 weeks, 7 responses) and SF-12 PH (pain in last 2 weeks, 5 responses) were re-coded into 4 responses: none, mild, moderate, severe pain. The pain question in EQ-5D-3L has 3 responses. Statistics: Pearson chi square test, logistic regression controlling for age and gender with pain decrease as the dependent variable.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.883 | 0.701 |
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".