Clinical, Serologic, and Genetic Factors Associated with Pyoderma Gangrenosum and Erythema Nodosum in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) and erythema nodosum (EN) are the most common cutaneous manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) but little is known regarding their etiopathogenesis. METHODS: We performed a case-control study comparing characteristics between IBD patients with a documented episode of PG (PG+) and/or EN (EN+) with those without PG (PG-) and EN (EN-). Data on clinical features were obtained by chart review. IBD-related serology was determined using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and genome-wide data generated using Illumina technology. Standard statistical tests for association were used. RESULTS: We identified a total of 92 cases of PG and 103 cases of EN with genetic and clinical characteristics, of which 64 PG and 55 EN cases were available for serological analyses. Fewer male subjects were identified in the PG(+) (odds ratio 0.6, P = 0.009) and EN(+) groups (odds ratio 0.31, P = 0 < 0.0001). Colonic disease, previous IBD-related surgery, and noncutaneous extra-intestinal manifestations were more common among both PG(+) and EN(+) patients compared with controls. PG(+) was associated with anti-nuclear cytoplasmic antibody seropositivity (P = 0.03) and higher anti-nuclear cytoplasmic antibody level (P = 0.02) in Crohn's disease. Genetic associations with PG included known IBD loci (IL8RA [P = 0.00003] and PRDM1 [0.03]) as well as with USP15 (4.8 × 10) and TIMP3 (5.6 ×10). Genetic associations with EN included known IBD susceptibility genes (PTGER4 [P = 8.8 × 10], ITGAL [0.03]) as well as SOCS5 (9.64 × 10), CD207 (3.14 × 10), ITGB3 (7.56 × 10), and rs6828740 (4q26) (P < 5.0 × 10). Multivariable models using clinical, serologic, and genetic parameters predicted PG (area under the curve = 0.8) and EN (area under the curve = 0.97). CONCLUSION: Cutaneous manifestations in IBD are associated with distinctive genetic characteristics and with the similar clinical characteristics, including the development of other extra-intestinal manifestations suggesting shared and distinct etiologies.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".