Diagnostic and periprocedural discomfort in inflammatory bowel disease: a concept analysis using the Rodgers evolutionary method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic, autoimmune gastrointestinal illness with a significant disease burden. The concept of discomfort in IBD lacks conceptual clarity. Aims: To analyse the concept of diagnostic and periprocedural discomfort in IBD and provide an understanding of its evolution, use in IBD research and implications for clinical practice through its attributes, antecedents, consequences and related terms. Methods: The Rodgers evolutionary concept analysis method guided this inductive approach. Findings: Seven journal articles, a dictionary, a thesaurus and one book were included in this analysis. The analysis yielded 12 surrogate terms, three attributes, five antecedents and one consequence. Diagnostic and periprocedural discomfort in IBD is an unpleasant, multidimensional and subjective experience, with biological, psychological or technical antecedents, which can occur independently of pain. Conclusion: Further research is required to enhance understanding of discomfort to improve the care of people living with IBD and their relationship with healthcare providers.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".