Work productivity and activity impairment in disorders of gut‐brain interaction: Data from the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction (DGBI) are highly prevalent worldwide, but their effect on work productivity has not gained much attention. AIMS AND METHODS: We aimed to compare work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI) in persons with and without DGBI in a large population-based cohort and identify factors independently associated with WPAI in subjects with DGBI. Data were collected from Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden via Internet surveys as part of the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study. Apart from the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire, questionnaires evaluating WPAI related to general health (WPAI:GH), psychological distress (PHQ-4), somatic symptom severity (PHQ-15) and other factors were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 16,820 subjects, 7111 met the criteria for DGBI according to the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire. Subjects with DGBI were younger (median (interquartile range) age 43 (31-58) vs. 47 (33-62)) and more often female (59.0% vs. 43.7%) compared to subjects without DGBI. Subjects with DGBI had higher absenteeism, presenteeism (poor work productivity due to illness), overall work impairment and activity impairment (p < 0.001) compared with subjects without. For subjects with DGBI affecting more than one anatomical region, WPAI was incrementally higher for each additional region. There were significant differences in WPAI for subjects with DGBI in different countries. Subjects from Sweden had the highest overall work impairment and from Poland the lowest. Using multiple linear regression, male sex, fatigue, psychological distress, somatic symptom severity and number of anatomical regions were independently associated with overall work impairment (p < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSION: In the general population, people with DGBI have substantial WPAI compared with those without DGBI. The reasons for these findings should be explored further, but having multiple DGBI, psychological distress, fatigue and somatic symptom severity seem to contribute to this impairment associated with 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 | 0.003 |
| 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".