The Risk of Developing Crohn's Disease After an Appendectomy: A Meta-Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies exploring the association between appendectomy and Crohn's disease (CD) have reported conflicting findings. We conducted a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis to assess the risk of CD following an appendectomy and determine the effect of time between appendectomy and CD diagnosis. METHODS: MEDLINE was used to identify observational studies evaluating the association between appendectomy and CD. Authors were contacted when data were insufficient. Relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. Studies that analyzed their data by the interval between the appendectomy and the diagnosis of CD were assessed separately. The Woolf chi(2) statistic was used to test for homogeneity. Egger's test was used to evaluate publication bias. RESULTS: The summary RR estimate for CD following an appendectomy was significantly elevated (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.28-2.02), though heterogeneity was observed (P < 0.0001). The risk was elevated within the first year following the operation (RR 6.69, 95% CI 5.42-8.25). The risk of CD was also significantly increased 1-4 yr following an appendectomy (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.66- 2.38); however, after 5 yr or more, the risk fell to baseline levels (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.99-1.18). Publication bias was not detected (P = 0.2). CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis demonstrated a significant risk of CD following an appendectomy, though heterogeneity was observed between the studies. The elevated risk early after an appendectomy, which diminishes thereafter, likely reflects diagnostic problems in patients with incipient CD.
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.
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) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it