The Interplay of Biopsychosocial Factors and Quality of Life in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GOAL: The aim of this study was to investigate the network of biopsychosocial factors and quality of life (QoL) in persons with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) and explore the influence of psychological factors on the course of the disease. BACKGROUND: QoL of persons with IBD depends on disease activity but also on numerous interacting psychosocial factors. The influence of psychosocial factors on the disease course in controversially discussed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2 independent IBD samples (sample 1: n=209, anonymous internet survey; sample 2: n=84, outpatients with active disease), we measured QoL, anxiety, depression, illness identity, self-esteem, loneliness, childhood trauma, and visceral sensitivity with questionnaires. In addition, fatigue, hemoglobin levels, and response to therapy were assessed in sample 2. We estimated multiple regularized partial correlation networks and conducted accuracy and stability tests of the networks. RESULTS: In both samples, QoL had the strongest relationships with visceral sensitivity and the illness identity engulfment. Depression was the most central factor in the networks. Baseline depression scores, visceral sensitivity, and engulfment were associated with response to therapy in sample 2. CONCLUSIONS: This first network study to assess the interplay between biopsychosocial factors and QoL in IBD reveals a comparable network structure in 2 samples. Results partly replicate findings from previous studies with regard to the importance of depression and yield information on the central role of the newly introduced concepts of illness identity and visceral sensitivity. Preliminary findings point to an influence of these parameters on the disease course, which indicates their role as a possible target in individualized therapy.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".