Outcomes following surgery for perforating Crohn's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The most common indications for surgery for patients with ileocolic Crohn's disease are fibrostenotic or perforating disease. The objective was to compare surgical outcomes of patients with perforating versus non-perforating disease following ileocolic resection. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of all patients who had their first ileocolic resection between 1990 and 2010, identified from a prospectively maintained inflammatory bowel disease database. Demographic information, preoperative medication, intraoperative findings and postoperative outcome data were collected. Outcomes in patients who had an abscess drained before surgery or were found to have a fistula or abscess at surgery or at pathology were compared with outcomes in all others. RESULTS: A total of 434 patients (56·2 per cent women) were included, 293 with perforating and 141 with non-perforating disease. Median age, tobacco use, and preoperative steroid and biological agent use were similar in the two groups. Forty patients (13·7 per cent) in the perforating group had abscesses drained before surgery and 251 patients had at least one fistula, most commonly to the sigmoid colon. Patients with perforating disease were more likely to require preoperative total parenteral nutrition, need another resection, have an ileostomy and a longer mean postoperative stay, and less likely to undergo a laparoscopic procedure. Patients in this group also developed more postoperative abscesses or leaks (4·8 versus 0 per cent; P = 0·006). The reoperation rate was similar (3·1 versus 0·7 per cent; P = 0·178). CONCLUSION: Patients with penetrating Crohn's disease are more likely to require a more complex procedure, and an ileostomy, and to a have longer postoperative stay.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".