Psychiatric Disorders in Adult and Paediatric Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD], which are associated with a high disease burden, are also reported to be accompanied by a high prevalence of psychiatric disorders. However, the literature on IBD and psychiatric disorders has not been reviewed. METHODS: This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines, and its protocol was registered at PROSPERO [ID: CRD42020214359]. PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO were consulted for the literature search. Studies reporting on diagnosed psychiatric disorders in IBD were included. Pooled prevalence rates were calculated using random effects meta-analyses. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale [NOS]. RESULTS: Sixty-nine studies were identified with an average cohort size of 60 114 patients. Pooled prevalence rates were: mood disorders, 10% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 7%; 15%); anxiety disorders, 12% [95% CI = 8%; 18%]; substance misuse, 3% [95% CI = 1%; 7%]; psychotic disorders, 2% [95% CI = 1%; 4%]; behavioural disorders, 1% [95% CI = 0%; 3%]; personality disorders, 3% [95% CI = 1%; 10%]; developmental disorders, 1% [95% CI = 0%; 3%]; and behavioural and emotional disorders with onset usually during childhood, 1% [95% CI = 1%; 3%]. All analyses had high statistical heterogeneity [I2 > 99%]. Seven studies reported an increased risk of suicide in IBD patients compared to controls. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities was high [11-82%] in patients with IBD and was higher than in the background population. Addressing mental health problems in patients with IBD can improve their adherence to treatment and the somatic disease course and, consequently, reduce morbidity and mortality.
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 | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".