Diagnostic delay in symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease: an Italian tertiary referral centre study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The magnitude of the diagnostic delay of symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease (SUDD) is unknown; we aimed to evaluate SUDD diagnostic delay and its risk factors. SUDD patients diagnosed at a tertiary referral centre were retrospectively enrolled (2010-2022). Demographic and clinical data were retrieved. Overall, patient-, and physician-dependant diagnostic delays were assessed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were fitted to identify risk factors for diagnostic delay. Overall, 70 SUDD patients (median age 65 years, IQR 52-74; F:M ratio = 1.6:1) were assessed. The median overall diagnostic delay was 7 months (IQR 2-24), patient-dependant delay was 3 months (IQR 0-15), and physician-dependant delay was 1 month (IQR 0-6). Further, 25% of patients were misdiagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). At multivariate analysis, previous misdiagnosis was a significant risk factor for overall and physician-dependant diagnostic delay (OR 9.99, p = 0.01, and OR 6.46, p = 0.02, respectively). Also, a high educational level (> 13 years) was associated with a greater overall diagnostic delay (OR 8.74 p = 0.02), while previous abdominal surgery was significantly associated to reduced physician-dependant diagnostic delay (OR 0.19 p = 0.04). To conclude, SUDD may be diagnosed late, IBS being the most frequent misdiagnosis. Timely diagnosis is crucial to tackle the burden of SUDD on patients and healthcare.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".