Factor Analysis of the Rome IV Criteria for Major Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction (DGBI) Globally and Across Geographical, Sex, and Age Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Rome criteria are widely accepted for diagnosing disorders of gut-brain interaction, but their global applicability has been debated. This study aimed to evaluate the validity of the Rome IV criteria by factor analysis globally, across geographical regions, by sex, and by age groups. METHODS: Data were collected in 26 countries using the Rome IV questionnaire. Forty-nine ordinal variables were used in exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to identify clusters of inter-correlated variables (factors) within the data set. Confirmatory factor analysis with predefined factors of the disorders of gut-brain interaction was compared with the factors in the EFA. Analyses were performed globally, for each geographical region (North and Latin America, Western and Eastern Europe, Middle East, Asia), sex, and age groups (18-34, 35-49, 50-64, ≥65). RESULTS: A total of 54,127 people were included. The EFA identified 10 factors accounting for 57% of the variance: irritable bowel syndrome, constipation, diarrhea, upper gastrointestinal symptoms, globus, regurgitation/retching, chest pain, nausea/vomiting, and 2 right upper quadrant pain factors. Most factors had close correspondence to a Rome IV criteria diagnosis, but notably, functional dysphagia and heartburn symptoms were often included in the same factor and/or in upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Most factors were consistent across geographical regions, sex, and age groups, and compatible to the global results. All prespecified factors in the confirmatory analysis had a loading ≥0.4, indicating validity of the Rome IV criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the Rome IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, functional constipation, globus, and biliary pain are globally valid and represent universal diagnostic entities that are similar across sex and age groups.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".