Global Prevalence, Characterization, and Impact of Functional Bowel Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Functional bowel disorders (FBDs) are common and have a profound impact on many aspects of life. However, little is known about their prevalence and impact in different parts of the world. METHODS: We used internet data (26 countries) from the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study to define the current prevalences of FBD and the association with psychological and nongastrointestinal somatic symptoms, quality of life, demographics, medical history, and healthcare utilization. We also investigated effects of changes in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) criteria from Rome III to IV in 14 countries. RESULTS: Rome IV criteria for any FBD were fulfilled by 33.2%, with functional constipation being the most common diagnosis (11.7%) followed by unspecified FBD (8.7%). Altered bowel habits was the most common qualifying symptom for unspecified FBD, while abdominal pain contributed particularly to the negative health impact. Individuals with FBD had more nongastrointestinal somatic and psychological symptoms, reduced quality of life, and increased healthcare utilization, most pronounced in IBS and opioid-induced constipation. Findings were similar across world regions and countries. The major contributor to lower Rome IV, vs Rome III, IBS prevalence (4.1% vs 10.1%) was the change in symptom frequency threshold for abdominal pain and/or discomfort. Minor alterations in IBS criteria influenced prevalence rates, but all versions showed associations with deleterious health impact. DISCUSSION: FBDs are common globally with minor differences across regions and countries and with prominent effects on health and daily life. Relatively minor diagnostic criteria changes can affect IBS prevalence rates substantially, but the negative health impact remains.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".