Prevalence of Peripheral Eosinophilia at Diagnosis in Children With Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) encompasses 2 disorders of unknown etiology: Crohn disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). There has been a continuous search for markers for disease activity. Eosinophils are granulocytic leukocytes that are implicated in the pathogenesis of IBD. The aim of this study was to examine the prevalence and significance of peripheral eosinophilia (PE) at diagnosis in children with IBD. METHODS: A comprehensive chart review of all children with diagnosed as having IBD between January 2006 and August 2014 was performed. Patients with PE at diagnosis were compared with those without in relation to disease clinical activity and disease course. RESULTS: A total of 109 children (mean age 14.6 ± 2.77, range 4.5-17.9 years, 55 boys) with IBD (68 with CD and 41 with UC) who were studied for a mean duration of 2.82 ± 1.89 (range 0.1-9.2 years) were identified. At diagnosis, 44 (40.4%) children had PE, which was more prevalent in patients with UC compared with those with CD (61.3% vs 36.3%, P < 0.05). At diagnosis, PE was more common in patients with high eosinophilic count in colonic biopsy samples (P < 0.01) and was significantly associated with disease activity as indicated by Pediatric CD Activity Index for children with CD (P < 0.05), Pediatric UC Activity Index for children with UC (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: PE is a common finding at diagnosis in children with IBD especially in those with UC. Patients with PE at diagnosis are more likely to present with higher clinical activity indices. PE is associated with more eosinophils in colonic biopsy samples.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".