Epidemiology of disorders of gut‐brain interaction in Belgium and differences between two language groups: Results from the Rome foundation global epidemiology study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Rome Foundation carried out a worldwide epidemiology study on DGBI according to the Rome IV criteria in 33 countries, including Belgium. DGBI prevalence varied between continents and countries, but prevalence differences within language groups in a single country have not yet been described. METHODS: We analyzed the prevalence rates of 18 DGBI and their psychosocial impact in Belgium in the French and Dutch language groups. KEY RESULTS: DGBI prevalence was similar in the French-speaking and Dutch-speaking population. Having one or more DGBI was negatively associated with psychosocial well-being. The scores for depression were lower in the Dutch-speaking participants with one or more DGBI compared to the French-speaking participants. Interestingly, we also found significantly lower scores in the general Dutch-speaking versus the French-speaking population for depression and non-gastrointesinal somatic symptoms, and higher global physical health and mental health quality-of-life component scores. In the Dutch-speaking group, medication use for gastric acid was lower, but use of prescribed analgesics was more common. Nevertheless, the use of non-prescribed pain medication was higher in the French-speaking group. Anxiety and sleep medication use was also higher in the latter group. CONCLUSIONS & INTERFERENCES: The results of this first in-depth analysis of Rome IV DGBI in Belgium show a higher prevalence for some DGBI in the French-speaking cohort, and a larger associated disease burden. These differences between language/culture groups in the same country support the psychosocial pathophysiological model of 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".