Worldwide population prevalence and impact of sub‐diagnostic gastrointestinal symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study (RFGES) found that 40.3% of adults in 26 internet-surveyed countries met Rome IV criteria for disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI). However, additional people not meeting DGBI criteria may also be burdened by frequent gastrointestinal symptoms. AIMS: To explore the prevalence and demographic distribution of sub-diagnostic gastrointestinal symptoms, and the hypothesised associated effects on quality of life (QoL), life functioning and healthcare needs. METHODS: We analysed data from the RFGES survey, which included the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire and QoL, psychological, work productivity and healthcare questions. RESULTS: Of the 50,033 people without a history of organic gastrointestinal disorders, 25.3% classified in the sub-diagnostic group (no DGBI but one or more frequent gastrointestinal symptoms), 41.4% had DGBI and 33.4% had no frequent gastrointestinal symptoms (non-GI group). Sub-diagnostic prevalence in different world regions ranged from 22.2% (North America) to 30.5% (Middle East), was slightly higher among males than females and decreased with age. The sub-diagnostic group was intermediate between the non-GI and DGBI groups, and significantly different from both of them on QoL, anxiety, depression, somatisation, healthcare utilisation and life and work impairment. CONCLUSIONS: One in four adults without organic gastrointestinal disorders or DGBI report frequent gastrointestinal symptoms. This sub-diagnostic group has reduced QoL, greater psychological and non-GI bodily symptoms, impaired work productivity and life activities and greater healthcare use compared to non-GI individuals. This suggests that many in this sub-diagnostic group might benefit from healthcare services or symptom self-management advice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".