The epidemiology and psychological comorbidity of disorders of <scp>gut–brain</scp> interaction in Australia: Results from the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study on the disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) was used to assess the national prevalence of all 22 DGBI, the percentage of respondents meeting diagnostic criteria for at least one DGBI, and the rates of comorbid anxiety, depression, and somatization in Australia and 25 other countries. METHODS: The survey was conducted in Australia and 25 other countries through the Internet and included the Rome IV Diagnostic Questionnaire and an in-depth supplemental questionnaire. KEY RESULTS: Two thousand thirty-six Australian adults completed the survey nationwide: mean age 47.34 ± 17.00 years, 50.15% males. Overall, 38.67% of Australians met criteria for at least one DGBI, with unspecified functional bowel disorder (8.01%) and then functional constipation (7.71%) being the most prevalent. For those Australians with at least one DGBI, rates of anxiety, depression, and somatization where high (26.58%, 28.96%, and 63.10%, respectively), with functional chest pain having the highest rates of anxiety (55.00%) and depression (57.50%), and irritable bowel syndrome (mixed) having the highest somatization rate (75.86%). The odds of having a DGBI increased with greater anxiety (OR: 1.09, CI 95%: 0.97, 1.23), depression (OR: 1.17, CI 95%: 1.04, 1.32), and somatization (OR: 1.17, CI 95%: 1.14, 1.20) symptom severity. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: The current study represents the most comprehensive epidemiological exploration of DGBI and mental health in Australia to date, including their prevalence and distributions across sex and age, associations between DGBI and anxiety, depression, and somatization. The findings warrants future comparisons between population characteristics and health care systems differences in order to reduce the burden of DGBI and mental illness worldwide.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".