The 2023 Impact of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Canada: Mental Health and Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychiatric disorders are 1.5 to 2 times more prevalent in persons with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) than in the general population, with pooled prevalence estimates of 21% for clinical anxiety and 15% for depression. Rates are even higher when considering mental health symptoms, as nearly one-third of persons with IBD experience elevated anxiety symptoms and one-quarter experience depression symptoms. Rates of these symptoms were much higher during periods of disease activity, more common in women than men, and more common in Crohn's disease than ulcerative colitis. There is robust evidence of the detrimental effects of comorbid depression and anxiety on the subsequent course of IBD based on longitudinal studies tracking outcomes over time. However, psychiatric disorders and IBD have bidirectional effects, with each affecting risk of the other. Elevated mental health concerns have been consistently associated with greater healthcare utilization and costs related to IBD. There is some signal that low resilience in adolescence could be a risk factor for developing IBD and that enhancing resilience may improve mental health and intestinal disease outcomes in IBD. Psychological therapies used to treat anxiety and depression occurring in the context of IBD have been shown to significantly improve the quality of life for persons with IBD and reduce anxiety and depression. There is less evidence in regard to the impact of psychotropic medications on mental health or disease outcomes in persons with IBD. There is consensus, however, that mental health must be addressed as part of comprehensive IBD care for children and adults.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.003 |
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".