IBD Disability Index Is Associated With Both Direct and Indirect Costs of Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to determine both direct (medical) and indirect (lost wages) costs of IBD and the association between the degree of IBD-related disability and extent of IBD-related costs. METHODS: Persons age 18-65 from the population-based University of Manitoba IBD Research Registry completed a survey including the IBD Disability Index (IBDDI) and questions related to employment, missed work (absenteeism), and reduced productivity at work (presenteeism). Administrative health data including surgeries, hospitalizations, physician claims, and prescriptions were linked to the survey and assessed. To calculate annual wage loss, number of days of missed work was multiplied by the average wage in Manitoba for the given occupation per Statistics Canada. Costs were adjusted to 2016-17 Canadian dollars. Using descriptive and regression analysis, we explored the association between IBDDI and annual direct and indirect costs associated with IBD. RESULTS: Average annual medical costs rose from $1918 among those with IBDDI 0-4 to $9,993 among those with IBDDI 80-86. Average annual cost of lost work rose from $0 among those with IBDDI 0-4 to $30,101 among those with IBDDI 80-86. Using linear regression, each additional unit of IBDDI was associated with an increase of $77 in annual medical cost (95% CI, $52-102; P < .001) and an increase of $341 in annual cost of lost wages (95% CI, $288-395; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Costs related to IBD are significantly associated with the degree of IBD-related disability. Among the approximate 30% of the IBD population with IBDDI scores ≥40, the indirect costs of absenteeism and presenteeism accounts for ~75% of the total IBD-related costs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".