Think With Your Gut: A Retrospective Analysis on the Effects of Chronic Gastrointestinal Illness and Psychiatric Comorbidities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: As mental health awareness increases, healthcare professionals must understand the interplay between chronic gastrointestinal (GI) conditions and psychological well-being, particularly regarding healthcare utilization. This study uniquely aggregates various chronic GI disorders, such as inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, and eosinophilic esophagitis, to examine their impact on depression and anxiety. Methods: Utilizing a retrospective observational design, we analyzed data from 34,876 patients admitted to HCA national hospitals from January 2016 to December 2022. Results: We found that patients with GI conditions and comorbid psychiatric disorders had significantly higher readmission rates and longer hospital stays compared to those without mental health diagnoses. Results indicated that patients with GI disorders and depression or anxiety were 1.29 times more likely to be readmitted within 90 days and had 1.50 times longer hospital stay. Conclusion: These findings underscore the importance of integrated care approaches addressing physical and mental health in managing chronic GI conditions. Future research should focus on targeted interventions to enhance mental health management and improve outcomes in this vulnerable patient population.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".