Cytomegalovirus complicating inflammatory bowel disease: a 10-year experience in a community-based, university-affiliated hospital.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an ongoing debate regarding the signifcance of cytomegalovirus (CMV) in colonic biopsies and the effect of antiviral therapy in patients with infammatory bowel disease (IBD). In order to evaluate the possible impact of CMV disease on IBD patients, we reviewed charts of patients admitted through the emergency department with diagnoses of IBD and CMV over a 10-year period (January 2000 to November 2009). Laboratory test results and pharmacology databases were scrutinized, and pathology slides were re-evaluated when possible. The control group consisted of a historical group of IBD patients with fares who had been similarly evaluated in the emergency department but who did not have a diagnosis of CMV. Both chi-square tests and the student's t-test were used for analysis. The study consisted of 31 patients with IBD and CMV (median age, 60 years; 65% male; 58% ulcerative colitis patients). Immunohistochemistry confirmed the diagnosis in 19 cases (61%). Nine patients with CMV and IBD underwent a colectomy (29%) compared to 65 of the 581 patients in the control group (11.2%), who were evaluated during the same time period but did not have CMV (P=.007). Mortality was similar in both groups. Of the patients with CMV, 11 received ganciclovir. No significant differences in outcomes were noted with antiviral therapy. Although CMV disease is relatively uncommon in IBD patients, its presence may designate an increased risk for colectomy for reasons that are not yet clear. Patient outcomes may be independently affected by age and comorbidities. Systematic prospective studies could help determine the true effects of CMV on IBD patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".