The aging gastrointestinal tract: Epidemiology and clinical significance of disorders of gut‐brain interaction in the older general population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most previous reports on the prevalence of disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) show higher rates in younger individuals. Exceptions are faecal incontinence and functional constipation. AIM: To compare prevalence rates for 22 DGBI and 24 primary symptoms, by age, using the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology (RFGES) study dataset. METHODS: The RFGES dataset enables diagnosis of 22 DGBI among 54,127 participants (≥18 years) in 26 countries. Older age was defined as ≥65 years. We assessed differences between age groups by sex, geographic region, somatisation, abnormal anxiety and depression scores, quality of life (QoL), individual gastrointestinal symptoms and disease severity for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). RESULTS: Rates for any DGBI were 41.9% and 31.9% in the <65 and ≥65 age groups, respectively. For all Rome IV diagnoses except faecal incontinence, rates were higher in the younger group. The older group had lower scores for any DGBI by geographic region, non-gastrointestinal somatic symptoms, abnormal anxiety and depression scores, and IBS severity, and better scores for QoL. The mean number of endorsed symptoms and their frequency were higher in the younger group. CONCLUSIONS: In this large general population study, the prevalence and impact of DGBI, apart from faecal incontinence, were higher in the younger group. Despite this, DGBI rates are still high in absolute terms in the ≥65 age group and necessitate clinical awareness and, perhaps, an age-specific treatment approach.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".