Multimodal Lifestyle Intervention Improves Fatigue in Quiescent Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Lifestyle factors are significant contributors to fatigue, affecting ~45% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Hence, we evaluated the effect of a multimodal lifestyle intervention on fatigue in patients with IBD. Methods Patients with quiescent IBD were enrolled in this multicenter, non-randomized, controlled interventional study. The intervention group followed a 12-month lifestyle program, which included digital group meetings with a nutritionist and a lifestyle coach focusing on nutrition, exercise, sleep, and relaxation. The program also encouraged patients to exercise more self-control over personal health. The control group received standard clinical care. Clinical data and patient-reported outcomes were collected. Fatigue was measured with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F); any increase in FACIT-F was considered a positive response to the intervention. Inverse probability treatment weighting was used to correct confounding by indication. Results Thirty-six patients in the intervention group and 32 in the control group were compared. More patients in the intervention group (82.1%) than in the control group (54.2%) experienced improvement in fatigue, P = .029, standardized mean difference (SMD) −0.624. Over 70% of patients in the intervention group achieved a clinically relevant improvement in fatigue. Compared to the control group, quality of life improved in the intervention group. Acceptance of the health status was a significant factor for fatigue improvement (β = 7.899, SE = 1.913, P < .001). Conclusions Multimodal lifestyle intervention improves fatigue in patients with IBD. Acceptance appears essential for fatigue improvement; instruments evaluating acceptance could help to personalize treatment and maximize its effectiveness.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".