Pain Characteristics in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Monocentric Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The abdominal pain common in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] patients is traditionally associated with inflammation but may persist during clinical remission. Central sensitization [CS] has not previously been explored in these patients. This study aimed to determine the epidemiology of pain in IBD patients and to specify pain characteristics with particular attention to CS. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 200 patients; 67% had Crohn's disease [CD]. Pain was assessed using the McGill questionnaire, using the Douleur Neuropathique 4 [DN4] questionnaire and by clinical examination. Its impacts on quality of life, depression and anxiety were also assessed. RESULTS: Three-quarters of IBD patients complained of pain, including intermittent pain attacks, 62% reported abdominal pain and 17.5% had CS. The prevalence of pain [83.6% vs 59.1%; p < 0.001] and abdominal pain [68.7% vs 48.5%; p = 0.006] was higher in CD patients than in ulcerative colitis [UC] patients. Multivariate analysis confirmed that age [p = 0.02], sex [female] [p = 0.004] and CD [p = 0.005] were independent risk factors for pain. Pain intensity was greater in the case of CS (6 [5-3] vs 3 [1.5-5], p < 0.003) which significantly impaired quality of life [p < 0.003] compared with pain without CS. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of pain was high in IBD patients [≈75%] and higher in CD patients. Significant impacts on quality of life were confirmed. More than 25% of patients with abdominal pain described CS as responsible for more severe pain and worsened quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION REF: NCT04488146.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".