Disorders of the gut‐brain interaction among European people with obesity: Prevalence and burden of compatible symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The prevalence of disorders of the gut‐brain interaction (DGBI) among people with obesity in the general population is unknown. Our aim was to assess the prevalence of DGBI among obese subjects in the general population in comparison with normal or overweight subjects, as well as exploring factors associated with DGBI in obesity in Europe. Methods We included subjects who completed the internet‐based survey of the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology study in 11 European countries. Obesity was defined as a BMI>30 kg/m 2 and participants were divided into three classes: 1: BMI 30 to <35 kg/m 2 , 2: BMI 35 to <40 kg/m 2 , and 3: BMI 40 kg/m 2 or higher. The prevalence of symptoms compatible with DGBI was reported and compared between obese and normal or overweight (BMI between 18.5 and <30 kg/m 2 ) participants. Factors potentially associated with DGBI and obesity including demographics, psychological distress (PHQ‐4), non‐GI somatic symptoms (PHQ–12), quality of life (PROMIS‐10), healthcare access, medication and food consumption were assessed. Results We included 20,117 participants in our analysis. The prevalence of obesity was 17.8% (95% CI 17.3, 18.4), with 12.6%, 3.7% and 1.6% in obesity classes 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The prevalence of any DGBI was 44.2% in the obese group versus 39.6% in the normal or overweight group (OR = 1.20 (1.12, 1.30)), with all DGBI being more prevalent in the obese versus normal or overweight group, with the exception for functional constipation where the opposite pattern was seen. Female sex, higher level of psychological distress and more severe non‐GI somatic symptoms were seen in the group with DGBI associated with obesity. Conclusions Symptoms compatible with DGBI are common among European people with obesity in the general population and are linked with certain demographic and disease‐related factors. This should be acknowledged in the management of patients with obesity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".