Self‐reported flares among people living with inflammatory bowel disease are associated with stress and worry but not associated with recent diet changes: The Manitoba Living with IBD Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this matched case-control longitudinal study among people living with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), we investigated beliefs about what triggers a flare. METHODS: Adults with confirmed IBD and active disease within 2 years were enrolled in the Manitoba Living with IBD Study and followed biweekly with online surveys for 1 year. The 7-point IBD Symptom Change Indicator was used for participant identification of a flare. Flare cases were matched to non-flare controls by sex and disease type. Members of each matched pair completed supplementary information on diet changes and psychological functioning in the previous 2 weeks and provided stool samples to assess fecal calprotectin (FCAL). RESULTS: Of 128 enrolled participants, 95 matched flare/non-flare pairs were created. Those reporting a flare were more likely to have elevated FCAL (51% vs 34% among non-flares, P = 0.043). Although 61% of study participants believed at baseline that a food may trigger flares, and 25% of those in a flare believed that a food may have triggered their current flare, there was no difference in consumption of assessed foods between flares and non-flares in the previous 2 weeks. Patients with flares were more likely to be having difficulties in emotional state than controls (40% vs 18%, P = 0.001) and more likely to be stressed or worried (64% vs 33%, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although a majority of individuals with IBD believe that specific foods trigger their disease flares, this was not supported by the current findings. Recent psychological functioning was associated with self-reported IBD flare.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".