Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) now affects about 1 in 300 of the population in many Westernized countries and is a significant public health problem, its incidence (the number of new cases per year) is not high.1 While there have been numerous studies of its overall incidence, many have involved identification of fewer than 200 new cases and have been too small to allow reliable assessment of age-specific incidence patterns. In addition, studies based on routinely collected data such as hospital admissions or primary care records have difficulty in distinguishing new (incident) cases from old (prevalent) cases suffering an IBD relapse. Exceptionally large studies are required to determine incidence by age. There have been 4 such large studies recently in Europe and North America. The EC-IBD study2 involved 2201 new IBD patients identified during 1990–1993 in 20 centers across Europe. Molinie et al3 reviewed all the IBD patients diagnosed by gastroenterologists within a region of northern France with a population of nearly 6 million. Over 7000 cases of IBD were recorded in the 10 years up to 1999 (4013 with Crohn's disease [CD] and 2,665 with ulcerative colitis [UC]). Bernstein et al4 identified 2380 cases of IBD in Manitoba, Canada, from a population of just over a million. They used an initial postal questionnaire and subsequent review of a proportion of the case notes. Moum et al5 reviewed the hospital records of all new diagnoses of IBD made between 1990 and 1993 in southeastern Norway. The baseline population was nearly a million and they identified 225 new cases of CD and 525 new cases of UC.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".