Characteristics of disorders of <scp>gut–brain</scp> interaction in the Japanese population in the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiological Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aims were to use Japanese data from the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiological Study (RFGES) to test the hypotheses that severity of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and psychosocial disturbance are ordered as Rome IV irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) > Rome III IBS > DGBI, not IBS > others. METHODS: Subjects were 2504 Japanese in the RFGES. We assessed DGBI/IBS diagnoses with Rome IV/III, IBS Symptom Severity Scale (IBS-SSS), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) for anxiety/depression and non-GI somatic symptoms, PROMIS-10 for quality of life (QOL), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) Questionnaire, parts of Self-reported IBS Questionnaire (SIBSQ) for meal effect and stress effect, Food Frequency Questionnaire, and medication questions. KEY RESULTS: The prevalence of Rome IV DGBI was as follows; IBS-C 0.5%, IBS-D 0.8%, IBS-M 0.8%, IBS-U 0.1%, unspecified functional bowel disorder 10.7%, postprandial distress syndrome 2.2%, and epigastric pain syndrome 0.3%. Rome III IBS prevalence; IBS-C 3.0%, IBS-D 3.1%, IBS-M 2.7%, and IBS-U 0.6%. Comparison among Rome IV IBS (n = 54), Rome III IBS (n = 197), other DGBI (n = 746), others (n = 1389) revealed significant order as Rome IV IBS > Rome III IBS > other DGBI > others in IBS-SSS, anxiety/depression, activity impairment, non-GI symptoms, physical QOL, mental QOL, exacerbated symptoms by meals and perceived stress (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: These findings support the study hypotheses. Data from Japan as a culturally homogenous country suggest Rome IV IBS is more severe and hence has more gut-brain psychobehavioral involvement than Rome III IBS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".