Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surgery is required in many patients with inflammatory bowel disease at some point in their disease. In patients with ulcerative colitis, surgery is potentially curative whereas recurrence of Crohn's disease following surgery is a common occurrence. As a result, the indications and surgical management of the two diseases may be quite different. Surgery is usually reserved for the management of complications or failure of medical treatment in Crohn's disease. Resection of the diseased segment is the usual procedure performed. While surgery usually results in an improvement in quality of life, recurrence of disease occurs frequently with reported rates of 5-90% at 1 year, depending on the criteria used. To date, there have been no surgical maneuvers which have been shown to decrease the risk of recurrence. Over the past few decades, several advances have been made in the surgical management of Crohn's disease: use of strictureplasty for extensive disease; use of laparoscopic techniques to perform surgery and the performance of the ileal pouch procedure in very selected patients. Significant advances in the surgical management of ulcerative colitis have been made in the past 50 years. Although there are several options available to patients, the preferred option now is the ileal pouch procedure. With technical modifications and with experience, this procedure can now be performed with a low complication rate, with good functional results and quality of life and excellent long-term outcome.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
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".