The relationship of quality of life and selected sociodemographic factors in patients with inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a group of chronic inflammatory diseases of the gastrointestinal tract with relapsing-remitting episodes that are very burdensome for the patient. Understanding the sociodemographic factors that affect a patient’s quality of life helps us to better understand the behavior and life circumstances of the patient as well as the patient’s ability to cope with the stresses caused by IBD. Aim The aim of the study was to identify factors that affect the quality of life of patients with IBD. Material and methods The study involved 100 patients with confirmed IBD (50 subjects with Crohn’s disease and 50 subjects with ulcerative colitis). Women constituted 45% (n=45) of the study group, while the remaining 55% (n=55) of the group were men. The mean age of the respondents participating in the study was 37.27±13.38. The youngest patient was 20 years old and the oldest was 76. The respondents were treated at the Department of General and Colorectal Surgery and at the Department of Digestive Tract Diseases (both at Medical University in Łódź, Poland). Data were collected using the SF-36 general questionnaire, the IBDQ specific questionnaire, and the original author’s questionnaire. Participation in the study was anonymous and voluntary. A significance level of 0.05 was adopted in the statistical analysis. Results The study showed that the quality of life of IBD patients is reduced. The psychosocial factors influencing the quality of life of IBD patients include education, place of residence, professional activity, having a spouse, and lack of surgical intervention. However, no significant relationship was found between the respondents’ gender and age and their quality of life in any of the domains of the SF-36 and IBDQ questionnaire. Conclusions The occurrence of IBD, a chronic and incurable disease, reduces the quality of life of those patients. However, a higher level of education, living in a larger community, and increased physical activity all have a positive impact on the quality of life of patients with IBD.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".