The association between eating rate and functional dyspepsia in Iranian adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: This study aimed to investigate the association between eating rate and functional dyspepsia (FD) in a large population of Iranian adults.Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we assessed eating rate of 4763 Iranian adults using a dietary habit questionnaire. We used a modified validated version of the Rome III questionnaire to assess gastrointestinal health. FD was defined as having one or more of the following characteristics: bothersome postprandial fullness, early satiation and/or epigastric pain or epigastric burning. Needed information on meal frequency, meal regularity, intra-meal fluid drinking as well as on other potential confounders was obtained by using a pre-tested questionnaire.Results: Functional dyspepsia was prevalent in 15.2% (n=703) of the studied population. Lunch and total eating rate was associated with greater odds of having FD(OR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.04-1.8) and (OR: 1.45; 95% CI: 1-2.11), respectively). However, this relationship weakened after adjusting for confounding factors. No significant relationship was found between dinner eating rate and FD in both crude and adjusted models (OR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.83-1.51). There was no significant relation between lunch, dinner or total eating rate and risk of postprandial fullness, early satiation or epigastric pain either in crude or adjusted models. Eating rate was not related to severity or frequency of FD components.Conclusions: Fast eating was associated with greater odds of FD. However, there was no association between fast eating with postprandial fullness and epigastria pain. Further studies, particularly prospective ones, are required to confirm these relations.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".