Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Phenotype and Clinical Outcomes of Older-onset Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known of the clinical outcome of patients with older-onset inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. We performed a systematic review to determine phenotype and outcomes of older-onset IBD compared with younger-onset subjects. METHODS: A systematic search of Embase and Medline up to June 2015 identified studies investigating phenotype and outcomes of older-onset [diagnosed at age ≥ 50 years] Crohn's disease [CD] and ulcerative colitis [UC] subjects. Pooled analyses of disease phenotype, medication use, and disease-related surgery were calculated. RESULTS: We analysed findings from 43 studies comprising 8274 older-onset and 34641 younger-onset IBD subjects. Compared with younger-onset patients, older-onset CD patients were more likely to have colonic disease (odds ratio [OR] 2.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.88 - 3.48) and inflammatory behaviour [OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 - 1.33], and less likely to have penetrating disease or perianal involvement. More older-onset UC patients had left-sided colitis [OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.18 - 1.88]. Although fewer older-onset IBD patients received immunomodulators [CD: OR 0.44; UC: OR 0.60] or biologicals [CD: OR 0.34; UC: OR 0.41], older-onset CD was similar in the need for surgery [OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.40 - 1.22] whereas more older-onset UC patients underwent surgery [OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.18 - 1.57]. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly IBD patients present with less complicated disease, but have similar or higher rates of surgery than non-elderly patients. Whether this reflects a non-benign disease course, physicians' reluctance to employ immunomodulators, or both, merits further study which is essential for improving the care of IBD in the elderly.
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 | 0.015 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".