Comparisons of the Rome <scp>III</scp> and Rome <scp>IV</scp> criteria for diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome in Indian and Bangladeshi communities and internal shifts in the diagnostic categories of bowel disorders of gut–brain interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the Rome IV criteria are the most recent criteria to diagnose irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), their sensitivity has been shown to be low in Chinese and Western populations. There are scanty data comparing the Rome III and Rome IV criteria in diagnosis of IBS in the Indian and Bangladeshi populations where abdominal pain, an essential component of diagnosis of IBS by the Rome IV criteria, is less in frequency and of lower severity. METHODS: We analyzed the Indian and Bangladeshi data from the Rome Global Epidemiology Study to compare diagnostic sensitivity of the Rome III and Rome IV criteria for IBS, internal shifts in diagnostic categories of disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI), the severity of IBS diagnosed by the Rome III and Rome IV criteria, and consultation patterns in these populations. KEY RESULTS: The Rome IV criteria were less sensitive than the Rome III criteria to diagnose IBS in these populations, and the subjects with Rome III IBS shifted internally to other DGBI when the Rome IV criteria were applied. Moreover, Rome IV IBS subjects had greater symptom severity than the Rome III IBS. A third of people fulfilling diagnostic criteria for IBS consulted doctors, and those diagnosed using Rome IV criteria, those with higher anxiety and depression symptom score, lower global physical health score, and greater IBS symptom severity score had greater correlation coefficients with doctors' consultation. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: The Rome IV diagnostic criteria for IBS are less sensitive than the Rome III criteria in Indian and Bangladesh communities. Application of the Rome IV criteria to people who meet the Rome III IBS criteria selects a subgroup of people with greater severity of symptoms, and hence, Rome IV IBS is more strongly associated with physician consultation. These findings may have important bearing in future iterations of the Rome criteria for a broader global applicability.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".