Phenotypic Manifestations of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Differ Between Hispanics and Non-Hispanic Whites: Results of a Large Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Hispanics are the fastest growing minority in the United States, yet few studies have examined the phenotypes of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in this population. No studies compare IBD presentation between foreign and US-born Hispanics. Our aim was to compare phenotypic characteristics of IBD between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites (NHWs), as well as between US-born and foreign-born Hispanics. METHODS: We retrospectively identified cohorts of adult IBD patients from 1998 to 2009 and compared ethnic variation in phenotype, including disease type (Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis (UC)), extra-intestinal manifestations (EIMs), Montreal classification, surgeries, hospitalizations, and medication prescription. RESULTS: A total of 325 patients were included; 208 were Hispanics. Foreign-born Hispanics, accounting for 68% of the total, were diagnosed at an older age than US-born Hispanics and NHWs (45 vs. 25 and 27, respectively, P<0.05). Foreign-born Hispanics manifested more UC than US-born Hispanics or NHWs (59.9% vs. 41% and 28.2%, respectively, P<0.05). No difference was noted in the prevalence of EIMs between Hispanics and NHWs. More upper gastrointestinal tract Crohn's was observed in NHWs (12.5% vs. 3.9%, P<0.05). The incidence density rate of IBD-related surgeries in NHWs was higher than in Hispanics (22.9 vs. 7.3 surgeries/100 person-years, P<0.01, hazard ratio: 0.3, 95% confidence interval: 0.14-0.5). Hispanic patients had fewer prescriptions for biologics and immunomodulators than NHWs (22.2% vs. 55.6%, P<0.01 and 35.7% vs. 53.8%, P<0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates differences in IBD presentation among NHW, US-born Hispanic, and foreign-born Hispanic groups. Further investigation to identify environmental and genetic differences between ethnic groups affected by IBD is warranted.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".