Comparison of the epidemiology of disorders of gut–brain interaction in four Latin American countries: Results of The Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Latin America, there are scarce data on the epidemiology of DGBI. The Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study (RFGES) Internet survey included 26 countries, four from Latin America: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, with a 40.3% prevalence of Rome IV DGBI. We aimed at comparing the prevalence of DGBI and associated factors among these countries. METHODS: The frequency of DGBI by anatomical region, specific diagnoses, sex, age, diet, healthcare access, anxiety, depression, and HRQOL, were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: Subjects included Argentina n = 2057, Brazil = 2004, Colombia = 2007, and Mexico = 2001. The most common DGBI were bowel (35.5%), gastroduodenal (11.9%), and anorectal (10.0%). Argentina had the highest prevalence of functional diarrhea (p = 0.006) and IBS-D; Brazil, esophageal, gastroduodenal disorders, and functional dyspepsia; Mexico functional heartburn (all <0.001). Overall, DGBI were more common in women vs. men and decreased with age. Bowel disorders were more common in the 18-39 (46%) vs. 40-64-year (39%) groups. Diet was also different between those with DGBI vs. those without with subtle differences between countries. Subjects endorsing criteria for esophageal, gastroduodenal, and anorectal disorders from Mexico, more commonly consulted physicians for bowel symptoms vs. those from Argentina, Brazil, and Colombia. General practitioners were the most frequently consulted, by Mexicans (50.42%) and Colombians (40.80%), followed by gastroenterologists. Anxiety and depression were more common in DGBI individuals in Argentina and Brazil vs. Mexico and Colombia, and they had lower HRQOL. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of upper and lower DGBI, as well as the burden of illness, psychological impact and HRQOL, differ between these Latin American countries.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".