The aging gut: Symptoms compatible with disorders of gut‐brain interaction ( <scp>DGBI</scp> ) in older adults in the general population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about changes in gastrointestinal symptoms compatible with disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) with increasing age at the population level. The objective of this study was to describe the patterns of DGBI in individuals 65 years of age and above and contrasting them with those of younger adults. METHODS: A community sample of 6300 individuals ages 18 and older in the US, UK, and Canada completed an online survey. Quota-based sampling was used to ensure equal proportion of sex and age groups (40% aged 18-39, 40% aged 40-64, 20% aged 65+) across countries, and to control education distributions. The survey included the Rome IV Diagnostic Questionnaire for DGBI, demographic questions, questionnaires measuring overall somatic symptom severity and quality of life, and questions on healthcare utilization, medications, and surgical history. RESULTS: We included 5926 individuals in our analyses; 4700 were 18-64 years of age and 1226 were ages 65+. Symptoms compatible with at least one DGBI were less prevalent in participants ages 65+ vs. ages 18-64 years (34.1% vs. 41.3%, p < 0.0001). For symptoms compatible with upper GI DGBI, lower prevalence for most disorders was noted in the 65+ group. For lower GI DGBI, a different pattern was seen. Prevalence was lower in ages 65+ for irritable bowel syndrome and anorectal pain, but no differences from younger participants for the disorders defined by abnormal bowel habits (constipation and/or diarrhea) were seen. Fecal incontinence was the only DGBI that was more common in ages 65+. Having a DGBI was associated with reduced quality of life, more severe non-GI somatic symptoms, and increased healthcare seeking, both in younger and older participants. CONCLUSION: Symptoms compatible with DGBI are common, but most of these decrease in older adults at the population level, with the exception of fecal incontinence which increases. This pattern needs to be taken into account when planning GI health care for the growing population of older 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".