Negative Impact of Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction on Health-Related Quality of Life: Results From the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: This study used the database from the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Survey to assess the differences in quality of life overall, and by age and sex, across individual disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI), gastrointestinal anatomical region(s), and number of overlapping DGBI. METHODS: Data were collected via the Internet in 26 countries, using the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire and a supplemental questionnaire including the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems Global-10 quality of life measure. Factorial analyses of variance were used to explore physical and mental quality of life, adjusting for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Among the 54,127 respondents, quality of life deteriorated significantly with increasing number of overlapping DGBI, with respondents reporting ≥2 DGBI having significantly poorer quality of life than those with only 1 DGBI or those without any DGBI. Men with DGBI reported better quality of life than women, and those aged ≥65 years reported better quality of life than those <65 years. Age, sex, number of overlapping DGBI, somatization, anxiety, depression, and functional experiences (concern, embarrassment, or stress associated with bowel functioning) relating to DGBI, were significant predictors of poorer physical and mental quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the most comprehensive assessment of quality of life to date in adults living with a DGBI. It provides a representative picture of DGBI impact on adults in the global adult population and highlights the significant detrimental impact of living with a DGBI on quality of life.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".