Sex‐ and gender‐related differences in the prevalence and burden of disorders of gut‐brain interaction in Poland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to assess sex- and gender-related differences in the epidemiology and impact of disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) in Poland. METHODS: Data used for the current analysis were derived from the Polish population sample of 2057 subjects (1030 F, 1027 M) collected via the Internet survey that included the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire and 80 supplementary questions. KEY RESULTS: The overall prevalence of DGBI in Poland was 46.0% (51.7% in women and 40.3% in men, p < 0.001). Comparing women versus men, esophageal disorders were observed in 6.3% vs. 6.0%, respectively (p > 0.05), gastroduodenal disorders in 14.0% vs. 7.8% (p < 0.001), bowel disorders in 44.3% vs. 33.9% (p < 0.001), and anorectal disorders in 9.9% vs. 7.7% (p > 0.05). The six most common DGBI included functional constipation 14.2%, functional dyspepsia 8.3%, proctalgia fugax 6.6%, functional bloating 4.8%, functional diarrhea 4.5%, and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) 4.4%. All these disorders, except for functional diarrhea, were more common in women. The DGBI overlap was significantly higher in women than in men (16.7% vs. 11.2%, p < 0.001). A higher number of overlapping DGBI correlated positively with IBS severity, higher level of somatization, anxiety and depression, poorer quality of life (QoL), and increased healthcare utilization. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: This is the first comprehensive report on significant sex/gender-related differences in the prevalence and burden of DGBI in Poland. The revealed differences between women and men with DGBI in the clinical profile, psychosocial variables, and healthcare utilization may have important diagnostic and therapeutic implications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".