Bibliographic record
Abstract
Up to 30% of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) will require surgical management. The established surgical procedure of choice is colectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for most patients. Patients with UC who have undergone IPAA are prone to develop inflammatory and non-inflammatory complications. Up to 50% of patients can be expected to experience at least one episode of pouchitis, and most of these patients will experience at least one additional acute episode within 2 years. In other cases, pouchitis might follow a relapsing-remitting course or a chronically active course. The specific aetiology of pouchitis is unknown and the optimal means of diagnosis and classification of pouchitis is not completely agreed upon. Diagnosis of pouchitis based on symptoms alone has been shown to be non-specific due to the fact that symptoms can originate from a myriad of aetiologies, not necessarily inflammatory in nature. As a result, the diagnosis of pouchitis should generally be based on the appropriate constellation of symptoms, combined with endoscopic and histological assessment. Due to the frequently relapsing course of pouchitis, and the fact that the aetiology and pathogenesis are not entirely clear, the long-term management can sometimes be challenging. This review outlines the features suggestive of deviation from 'normal' pouch function and provides an approach to the optimal use of diagnostic modalities and medical therapies to treat pouchitis in its various forms.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.024 |
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".