Isotretinoin and Risk for Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between isotretinoin and the risk for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) among women of reproductive age. DESIGN: Nested case-control study and meta-analysis. SETTING: A US health claims database. PARTICIPANTS: We formed a cohort of women aged 18 to 46 years who had received at least 1 oral contraceptive prescription from May 1, 2001, through December 31, 2009. The IBD cases were required to have 3 health care contacts with documentation of IBD or a single health care contact followed by use of a drug to treat IBD. Twenty controls were selected for each case using incidence-density sampling, matched on age and date of diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk ratios (RRs) were formed for incident cases of IBD associated with the use of isotretinoin. A subgroup analysis examined the risk for IBD among those diagnosed as having Crohn disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). A meta-analysis of published and unpublished studies assessing isotretinoin and IBD used a random-effects model to estimate a pooled RR. RESULTS: In the case-control study, we identified 2159 IBD cases (1056 with UC and 1103 with CD) and matched them with 43 180 controls. Only 10 cases (0.46%) and 191 controls (0.44%) were exposed to isotretinoin. The adjusted RR for IBD was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.52-1.90). The RRs for UC and CD were 1.10 (95% CI, 0.44-2.70) and 0.91 (0.37-2.25), respectively. For the meta-analysis, the pooled RR for IBD for the 5 studies was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.65-1.36). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study do not suggest an increase in the risk for IBD, including UC or CD, with use of isotretinoin. Because inflammatory acne in children and adolescents carries a high psychological burden, clinicians should not be discouraged from prescribing this drug owing to a putative association with IBD.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".