The epidemiology and impact of disorders of gut–brain interaction in Canada: Results from the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiologic Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Using data from the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study examining prevalence of disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) in 33 countries, this study explored the prevalence of all 22 disorders in Canada. It examined differences related to geography and sociodemographic factors, health impact and compared these findings to other countries. METHODS: The Rome Foundation survey was conducted through the Internet, targeting 2000 Canadian participants. The survey used the validated ROME IV diagnostic questionnaire to identify the 22 DGBI and an in-depth supplemental questionnaire that included quality assurance techniques. KEY RESULTS: There were 2029 respondents with a mean age of 48 years and 50% females. Diagnostic criteria for at least one of the 22 DGBI were met by 41.3%, similar to other countries. Functional constipation, functional diarrhea, and unspecified functional bowel disorders were most common. Irritable bowel syndrome prevalence was 4.2% using Rome IV and 10.1% using ROME III criteria. DGBI were associated with poorer quality of life and increased psychological symptom scores. Prevalence of DGBI ranged from 48% in Quebec to 36% in British Columbia. Prescription pain medication was reported by 17% with DGBI compared to 9% without DGBI and correlated negatively with mental health and physical well-being. Quebecers and francophones were in limited number but reported higher DGBI prevalence and symptom severity compared to others. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: A large proportion of Canadians suffer from DGBI which seriously impact their well-being. Findings highlight the need for further research and education, including understanding whether significant regional and cultural differences contribute to DGBI.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".