Fatigue in pediatric inflammatory bowel diseases: A systematic review and a single center experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to review the literature on fatigue in pediatric inflammatory bowel diseases (PIBD), to explore how it is measured, and approximate its rate in an inception pediatric cohort. METHODS: Studies on fatigue were systematically reviewed and selected by two authors. Next, we retrieved the two fatigue-related questions of the IMPACT-III questionnaire at 4 and 12 months after diagnosis from a prospectively maintained cohort of PIBD patients, each scoring 0-100 (lower scores imply more fatigue), and 44 healthy controls. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 14 studies reporting fatigue in children, of which nine had fatigue as the primary outcome and only two provided rates of fatigue. No standalone index was identified for measuring fatigue specifically for PIBD. Of 80 children included in the inception cohort, 62 (78%) scored an average of ≤75 on the two IMPACT-III questions (approximating at least mild fatigue), 26 (33%) scored ≤50 (at least moderate fatigue) and nine (11%) scored ≤25 (severe fatigue). In comparison, only four (9%) healthy children scored at least moderate fatigue (p = 0.007). Fatigue rates at 12 months were only slightly and nonsignificantly lower. Fatigue of any severity was reported in 92% children with active disease versus 63% of those in clinical remission (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Literature reporting on fatigue in PIBD is scarce, and no PIBD-specific tool is available to measure fatigue. In our cohort, fatigue-related questions were frequently scored low in children with IBD, mainly among children with active disease but also during clinical remission.
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 | 0.013 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".