Global prevalence and gastrointestinal symptom burden of individuals with a history of cholecystectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cholecystectomy is commonly performed globally, and many patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) report that their symptoms have either preceded or developed following cholecystectomy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the global prevalence of a self-reported history of a cholecystectomy and investigate its association with fulfilling Rome IV diagnostic criteria for DGBI. DESIGN: First, we used population-based internet questionnaire data from the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study (n=54 127) to calculate the cross-sectional prevalence of a self-reported history of cholecystectomy. Second, we compared the prevalence of meeting diagnostic criteria for DGBI by cholecystectomy, using logistic regression models to calculate ORs before and after adjusting (AOR) for potential confounders. RESULTS: We identified 2709 subjects with cholecystectomy, corresponding to a global prevalence of 5.0% (95% CI 4.8 to 5.2). Global differences followed an east to west gradient, ranging from 1.9% in Asia to 9.9% in North America. Cholecystectomy was associated with a higher prevalence of fulfilling symptom criteria for any DGBI (AOR 1.50, 56.2% with cholecystectomy vs 42.3% without cholecystectomy), with the highest AOR found for gastroduodenal (AOR 1.73; 19.9% vs 11.8%) and anorectal (AOR 1.71; 17.0% vs 8.4%) disorders, followed by oesophageal (AOR 1.47; 12.3% vs 6.6%) and bowel (AOR 1.38; 47.5% vs 35.4%) disorders. CONCLUSION: Cholecystectomy is prevalent worldwide and varies across world regions. A history of this procedure is associated with a higher GI symptom burden, either due to new cholecystectomy-related symptomatic conditions, or persistent DGBI misattributed to biliary disease for which a cholecystectomy was erroneously performed.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".