MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386817625 · doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000002500

Global Prevalence of Psychological Distress and Comorbidity With Disorders of Gut-Brain Interactions

2023· article· en· W4386817625 on OpenAlexaff
Inês A. Trindade, Jóhann P. Hreinsson, Chloé Melchior, Joost P. Algera, Esther Colomier, Hans Törnblom, Douglas A. Drossman, Jan Tack, Olafur S. Palsson, Shrikant I. Bangdiwala, Ami D. Sperber, Magnus Simrén

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersAllerganIronwood Pharmaceuticals, IncorporatedTakeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A.
KeywordsMedicineDistressComorbidityQuality of life (healthcare)Confidence intervalOdds ratioPsychiatryPsychological distressClinical psychologyEpidemiologySomatic cellOddsMental healthAnxietyInternal medicineLogistic regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This study focused on defining the global prevalence of clinically relevant levels of psychological distress and somatic symptoms and the prevalence of coexistence between these symptoms and disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI). We also analyzed how clinically relevant psychological distress and somatic symptoms and coexistent DGBI are associated with health-related outcomes. METHODS: We included a representative sample of 54,127 adult participants (49.1% women; mean age of 44.3 years) from 26 countries worldwide. Participants completed an Internet survey (the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study) with validated self-report questionnaires. RESULTS: Clinically relevant psychological distress and/or somatic symptom severity was reported by 37.5% of the sample. These participants had 4.45 times higher odds to have at least one DGBI than individuals without psychological distress and/or somatic symptoms. Compared with participants with psychological distress and/or somatic symptoms with vs without DGBI, participants with a DGBI reported increased healthcare and medication utilization (with OR from 1.6 to 2.8). Coexistent DGBI in participants with psychological distress and/or somatic symptoms was the variable most strongly associated with reduced mental (β = -0.77; confidence interval [-0.86 to -0.68]) and physical (β = -1.17; confidence interval [-1.24 to -1.10]) quality of life. DISCUSSION: This global study shows that psychological distress, somatic symptoms, and DGBI are very common and frequently overlap. The coexistence between psychological distress/somatic symptoms and DGBI seems to be especially detrimental to quality of life and healthcare utilization. Individuals with psychological distress/somatic symptoms and DGBI coexistence seem to be a group vulnerable to psychosocial problems that should be studied further and would likely benefit from psychological/psychiatric interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207