Health care utilization of individuals with Rome IV irritable bowel syndrome in the general population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is highly prevalent worldwide but mechanisms for healthcare seeking behaviours in this patient group are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To describe healthcare utilization and identify factors associated with seeking healthcare amongst IBS subjects in the general population. METHODS: An internet survey was completed by 6,300 individuals equally distributed between United States, United Kingdom and Canada. The Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire was used to identify subjects with IBS. Data on demographics, medical history, gastrointestinal (GI) and non-GI symptoms, quality of life and health care consumption was collected. RESULTS: A total of 5,931 subjects were included; 274 (4.6%) IBS subjects and 5657 (95.3%) non-IBS controls. IBS subjects reported more doctor consultations for both GI and other health problems as well as increased use of medication and rate of abdominal surgery (appendectomy excluded). Having healthcare insurance or access to free public healthcare (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 4.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31-15.44), followed by high frequency of bloating (AOR 2.65, 95% CI 1.42-4.93) and increasing age (AOR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.05) were found to be independently associated with being an IBS consulter while doctor-diagnosed IBS subjects were more likely to be female and to report abdominal pain as their most bothersome GI symptom than other consulters with IBS. CONCLUSION: IBS subjects have higher healthcare utilization than non-IBS controls, medication use and abdominal surgery included. Furthermore, consulters with and without an IBS diagnosis differ in sex distribution and symptom profiles. Hence, awareness of the possibility of unnecessary medical and surgical treatment in IBS subjects and a sex-related diagnostic bias by doctors is warranted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".