MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983226006 · doi:10.1002/ibd.20594

What is the incidence, prevalence, and natural history of indeterminate colitis?

2008· article· en· W1983226006 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gianmichele Meucci

Bibliographic record

VenueInflammatory Bowel Diseases · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndeterminateNatural historyIncidence (geometry)MedicineColitisInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The term “indeterminate colitis” (IC) was originally introduced in 1978 to describe surgical specimens from patients undergoing colectomy for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), when the histological picture was not characteristic for either Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC). Several studies have consistently shown that such a diagnosis could be made in 5%–15% of cases. However, up to two-thirds of these patients could later be reclassified as affected by 1 of the 2 major forms of IBD when all clinical, radiological, and endoscopic evidence was taken into account.1,2 Subsequently, this term has been increasingly used to indicate nonoperated patients that were definitely affected by IBD confined to the colon but in which a clear diagnosis of either CD or UC could not be made. It has been recently recommended that the term “IBD unclassified” should be preferred to indicate these patients; nevertheless, the term “indeterminate colitis” appears to be constantly used in most epidemiological and clinical studies.3,–5 Many population-based studies and hospital-based surveys have consistently found that, in adults, IC accounts for 3%–6% of all initial IBD diagnoses in Europe, as well as in Australia, Japan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa; slightly lower figures have been occasionally reported from some south-European areas, and much higher figures (10%–18%) in a single study from Canada. By contrast, the frequency of IC appears to be higher (up to 29%) among children, especially in northern Europe. To the best of our knowledge, no published data exist on the frequency of IC in American adults, whereas in children a frequency of 9% and of 13% has been found in Wisconsin and California, respectively.1 Very few data are available on the true incidence and prevalence of IC in the general population. In adults, an incidence of about 1/100,000/year and a prevalence of 3–7/100,000 were found in some European countries (Denmark, Hungary, Spain, Holland) but a higher incidence (about 2.5/100,000/year) has been reported in Scandinavia and Canada. The incidence of IC in children has been assessed in Sweden, France, and Wales, ranging from 0.12–0.7/100,000/year.1 It is generally believed that in most cases IC merely represents a provisional diagnosis; indeed, follow-up studies have shown that a vast proportion (up to 80%) of patients are eventually reclassified as being affected by either CD or UC, and up to 20% as not affected by IBD. However, a small subset of patients exists in which IC still remains the most accurate diagnosis a long time after disease onset (more than 10 years). It is likely that in such cases IC really represents a separate clinical entity. It has been suggested that serologic testing can help identifying these patients. In one study,6 a definite diagnosis of either CD or UC was eventually made in 40% of patients that were positive for either perinuclear antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) or anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies (ASCA), but in only 10% or those that were initially negative for both. In more recent years, capsule endoscopy has been emerging as a promising tool to identify subtle small bowel abnormalities in patients with IC, thus allowing a change in diagnosis to CD.7 Very little is known about the clinical course of patients with “true” IC. It is generally assumed that such patients are clinically more similar to those with UC than those with CD. However, it has been occasionally reported that, when compared to patients with UC, patients with IC have a more aggressive disease course, with a higher risk or relapse, a more frequent need for immunosuppressants, and a higher rate of colectomy. Moreover, in patients with IC undergoing proctocolectomy with ileal pouch–anal anastomosis, the rate of postoperative complications is higher than in patients with UC and, in particular, the rate of pouch failure has been reported to be nearly 30%.8 No clinical trials have specifically evaluated the efficacy of any therapeutic agent in patients with IC, but the current recommendation is to treat these patients as those affected by UC are treated. In an open series the clinical response to infliximab was quite similar in patients with UC and IC. No consensus exists on which is the best surgical treatment for these patients, with some experts recommending permanent ileostomy and others believing that the complication rate mentioned above still warrants performing ileal pouch. anastomosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInflammatory Bowel DiseasesSame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207