Consensus and Controversy in the Management of Pediatric Crohn Disease: An International Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Treatment options for patients with Crohn disease (CD) have expanded, but the use of some of these options in pediatric patients remains controversial. The authors evaluate current trends in treatment and areas of consensus or controversy. METHODS: An international survey of certified pediatric gastroenterologists was conducted using an e-mail questionnaire in an attempt to evaluate management of active Crohn disease, attitudes toward four types of therapy, and prevalence of testing for osteopenia and 6-thioguanine levels. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-seven physicians from the United States, Canada, Western Europe, and Israel were included. The majority of North American physicians (71%) prefer to use conventional steroids and azathioprine (AZA) before nutritional therapy or budesonide for patients with mild to moderately active disease, versus 21% of Western Europeans (P < 0.001). Western Europeans prefer nutritional therapy followed by budesonide or steroids for those with mild or moderate disease. Only 4% of North American gastroenterologists use nutritional therapy frequently versus 62% of their Western European colleagues (P < 0.001). Infliximab was thought to be effective for steroid-unresponsive disease by almost all physicians surveyed, although its efficacy as a maintenance therapy was rated higher by North American physicians than by their Western European and Israeli colleagues (P < 0.01). Bone mineral density is routinely evaluated by about 45% of physicians in Western Europe and North America. CONCLUSIONS: Attitudes toward current therapies vary significantly by region, with North Americans strongly favoring corticosteroids followed by immunomodulatory therapy, and Western Europeans favoring nutritional therapy or budesonide and the avoidance of conventional corticosteroids.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".