Quality of Life in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analyses—Part I
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Quality of life (QoL) is commonly assessed in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); the relationship of QoL within IBD states and relative to others has not been comprehensively evaluated. This systematic review, published across 2 papers, evaluates 5 key QoL comparisons. Part I, presented here, examines between-disease comparisons: (1) IBD/healthy(general) population and (2) IBD/other medically ill groups. Part II examines within-disease comparisons: (3) active/inactive disease, (4) ulcerative colitis/Crohn's disease, and (5) change over time. Outcomes using generic vs IBD-specific QoL measures were also examined. Methods: Adult and pediatric studies were identified through systematic searches of 7 databases from the 1940s (where available) to October 2015. Results: Of 6173 abstracts identified, 466 were selected for final review based on controlled design and validated measurement; 30 unique studies (23 adult, 7 pediatric) addressed the between-disease comparisons. The pooled mean QoL scores were (1) lower in adult and pediatric IBD samples compared with healthy controls (n = 19), and for both mental and physical QoL, where measured; and (2) higher but not significant for those with IBD compared with various medically ill controls (n = 15). Findings were consistent across IBD-specific and generic QoL measures. Study quality was generally low to moderate. The most common measures of QoL were the disease-specific Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire and generic SF-36 (adults), and the generic PedsQL (children). Conclusions: There was robust confirmation that QoL for individuals with IBD was poorer than for healthy individuals, for both adults and children. QoL in IBD may be better relative to some other gastrointestinal (GI) and non-GI medical conditions for children.
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 | 0.021 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".