Decreasing Colectomy Rates for Ulcerative Colitis: A Population-Based Time Trend Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Colectomy rates for ulcerative colitis (UC) have been inconsistently reported. We assessed temporal trends of colectomy rates for UC, stratified by emergent vs. elective colectomy indication. METHODS: From 1997 to 2009, we identified adults hospitalized for a flare of UC. Medical charts were reviewed. Temporal changes were evaluated using linear regression models to estimate the average annual percent change (AAPC) in surgical rates. Logistic regression analysis compared: (i) UC patients responding to medical management in hospital to those who underwent colectomy; (ii) UC patients who underwent an emergent vs. elective colectomy; and (iii) temporal trends of drug utilization. RESULTS: From 1997 to 2009, colectomy rates significantly dropped for elective colectomies with an AAPC of -7.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): -10.8%, -3.9%). The rate of emergent colectomies remained stable with an AAPC of -1.4% (95% CI: -4.8%, 2.0%). Azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine prescriptions increased from 1997 to 2009 (odds ratio (OR)=1.15; 95% CI: 1.09-1.22) and infliximab use increased after 2005 (OR=1.68; 95% CI: 1.25-2.26). A 13% per year risk adjusted reduction in the odds of colectomy (OR=0.87; 95% CI: 0.83-0.92) was observed in UC patients responding to medical management compared with those who required colectomy. Emergent colectomy patients had a shorter duration of flare (<2 weeks vs. 2-8 weeks, OR=5.31; 95% CI: 1.58-17.81) and underwent colectomy early after diagnosis (<1 year vs. 1-3 years, OR=5.48; 95% CI: 2.18-13.79). CONCLUSIONS: From 1997 to 2009, use of purine anti-metabolites increased and elective colectomy rates in UC patients decreased significantly. In contrast, emergent colectomy rates were stable, which may have been due to rapid progression of disease activity.
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 | 0.001 | 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".