Confirmatory validation of the patient health questionnaire - 4 (PHQ-4) for gastrointestinal disorders: A large-scale cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Using the large Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Survey dataset, the aim of this study was to evaluate the construct and convergent validity and internal consistency of the PHQ-4 across both gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal condition cohorts. Another aim was to provide descriptive information about the PHQ-4 including means, confidence intervals and percentage of caseness using a large representative sample. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 26 countries. Confirmatory factor and internal consistency analyses were conducted across subsamples of patients with gastrointestinal conditions (i.e., disorders of gut-brain interaction [DGBI; any DGBI, individual DGBI, and DGBI region], gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), coeliac disease, diverticulitis, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), cancer anywhere in the gastrointestinal tract, peptic ulcer) and those without a gastrointestinal condition. Convergent validity was also assessed via a series of Pearson's correlation coefficients with PROMIS (physical and mental quality of life), and PHQ-12 (somatisation). RESULTS: Based on 54,127 participants (50.9% male; mean age 44.34 years) confirmatory factor analysis indicated acceptable to excellent model fits for the PHQ-4 across all subsamples and individual DGBI and DGBI region (Comparative Fit Index >0.950, Tucker-Lewis Index >0.950, Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation <0.05, and Standardised Root Mean Square Residual <0.05). The PHQ-4 was found to demonstrate convergent validity (Pearson's correlation coefficients >±0.4), and good internal consistency (Cronbach's α > 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that the PHQ-4 is a valid and reliable tool for assessing mental health symptomology in both gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal cohorts.
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 | 0.025 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".