Prevalence of Rome IV Functional Bowel Disorders Among Adults in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & Aims: Little is known about the population prevalence or demographic distributions of Rome IV functional bowel disorders (FBDs) or their effects on quality of life. We examined these in a multinational survey. Methods: We analyzed data from a population-based survey of adults in the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom (5931 valid responders; 49.2% female; mean age, 47.4 years; range, 18–92 years). The survey included the Rome IV Diagnostic Questionnaire, Rome III irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and constipation questions, and the SF-8 quality of life questionnaire. Results: The prevalence values of census-adjusted Rome IV FBDs were similar among the 3 countries; ranges were: 4.4%–4.8% for IBS, 7.9%–8.6% for functional constipation, 3.6%–5.3% for functional diarrhea, 2.0%–3.9% for functional bloating or distention, 1.1%–1.9% for opioid-induced constipation, 7.5%–10.0% for unspecified FBDs, and 28.6%–31.7% for any Rome IV FBD. FBDs were less common in older individuals, and all except functional diarrhea were more common in women. IBS was only half as prevalent by Rome IV as by Rome III criteria (4.6% vs 9.0% overall), primarily due to higher Rome IV minimum pain frequency. Functional diarrhea and functional constipation were more prevalent by Rome IV than Rome III criteria. Subjects with FBD had significant reductions in quality of life and reported more gastrointestinal doctor consultations than other subjects. Conclusions: More than 1 in 4 adults in the general population meet the Rome IV criteria for FBDs. These disorders affect quality of life and increase use of gastrointestinal health care. The switch from Rome III to Rome IV criteria reduces the prevalence of IBS by half, but increases the prevalence of functional constipation and functional diarrhea.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".