Can Hypnotherapy Be Considered a Valuable Component in the Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease? Insights from a Comprehensive Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite advancements in medication,managing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains challenging, necessitatingalternative control methods. Gut-directed hypnotherapy, known for alleviating irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), is debated as an IBD management method. Anextensive search across PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.govuncovered five randomized trials and two case series involving IBD patients undergoing hypnotherapy. A small trial reported statistically significant remission at one year (p = .04), but larger trials, including one with 63 patients, showed no significant gastrointestinal improvements. The first case series noted post-intervention reduction in the mediators of inflammation in rectal mucosal, without long-term monitoring. The second case series observed the absence of flare episodes in 12 of 13 ulcerative colitis patients during follow-up, possibly influenced by the simultaneous use of two drugs alongside hypnotherapy. Psychological outcomes, demonstrated no significant differences between hypnotherapy and control groups. While current literature doesn't decisively support hypnotherapy for managing IBD symptoms, it underscores the importance of further research, including randomized clinical trials, to thoroughly assess its effectiveness in this context.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".