Anti tumour necrosis factor as risk factor for free perforations in Crohn’s disease? A case–control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Although the occurrence of intestinal perforation in Crohn's disease (CD) is rare, clinical observation has led to the question whether anti tumour necrosis factor (TNF) treatment is a risk factor for free perforation. The aim of this study was to investigate the possible relation between anti-TNF treatment and occurrence of free perforation, defined as intestinal perforations leading to emergency surgery. METHOD: In this case-control study, all emergency operation reports from the period 1999-2009 of patients diagnosed with CD were checked for the presence of free perforation. These cases were compared with a sixfold larger control group derived from our CD patient database. Cases and controls were matched for age, gender, Montreal classification and surgical stage to ensure equal disease severity. Cases and controls were then compared regarding previous or current exposure to anti-TNF treatment. RESULTS: Thirteen patients underwent emergency surgery for spontaneous free perforation. Eight (62%) had been treated with anti-TNF within 5 months before the perforation. In the 78 matched controls, 29 (37%) had been or were still treated with anti-TNF. The odds for a free perforation adjusted for known confounders in two separate regression analyses were significantly higher in anti-TNF treated CD patients, albeit with a large confidence interval (OR 4.1, 95% CI: 1.1-16.0; and OR 23.0, 95% CI 2.2-238.5). CONCLUSION: This study showed a higher occurrence of free perforations in CD patients with anti-TNF therapy compared with those without anti-TNF therapy. Patients with CD and anti-TNF treatment showing acute abdominal pain must be suspected of this complication.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".