The Real-World Global Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes for the Care of Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Many patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been developed for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) without recommendations for clinical use. PROs differ from physician-reported disease activity indices; they assess patients' perceptions of their symptoms, functional status, mental health, and quality of life, among other areas. We sought to investigate the current global use and barriers to using PROs in clinical practice for IBD. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was performed. An electronic questionnaire was sent to an international group of providers who care for patients with IBD. Results: There were 194 respondents, including adult/pediatric gastroenterologists, advanced practice providers, and colorectal surgeons from 5 continents. The majority (80%) use PROs in clinical practice, 65% frequently found value in routine use, and 50% frequently found PROs influenced management. Thirty-one different PROs for IBD were reportedly used. Barriers included not being familiar with PROs, not knowing how to incorporate PRO results into clinical practice, lack of electronic medical record integration, and time constraints. Most (91%) agreed it would be beneficial to have an accepted set of consistently used PROs. The majority (60%) thought that there should be some cultural differences in PROs used globally but that PROs for IBD should be consistent around the world. Conclusions: PROs are used frequently in clinical practice with wide variation in which are used and how they influence management. Education about PROs and how to use and interpret an accepted set of PROs would decrease barriers for use and allow for global harmonization.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it