Budesonide Use and Hospitalization Rate in Crohn’s Disease: Results From a Cohort at a Tertiary Care IBD Referral Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Budesonide is generally not used for periods > 90 days in Crohn's disease (CD). We sought to study the association between cumulative outpatient budesonide use in days and hospitalization rate in CD patients seen at our institution. METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort study design, we selected CD patients > 19 years old and followed for at least 1 year. Days of outpatient budesonide use were calculated by reviewing outpatient clinic notes. Treatment groups included patients who were not given budesonide, received budesonide from 1 to 90 days, and received budesonide > 90 days. We performed univariate analyses and developed generalized Poisson regression models for rate data to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for CD-related hospitalization. RESULTS: Of 767 CD patients, 664 did not receive budesonide, 45 received budesonide from 1 to 90 days, and 58 received budesonide for > 90 days. Incidence rates of hospitalization in patients who received no budesonide vs. 1 - 90 days of budesonide vs. > 90 days of budesonide were 31, 26, and 19 per 100 person-years, respectively. Adjusted models demonstrated that receiving outpatient budesonide from 1 to 90 days and for > 90 days was associated with a lower likelihood of being admitted for a CD exacerbation (1 - 90 days: IRR 0.85; 95% CI 0.65 - 1.10; > 90 days: IRR 0.71; 95% CI 0.56 - 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient budesonide use appears to be associated with a lower likelihood of a CD-related hospitalization, notably when used for > 90 days. This association needs to be further assessed before recommending this agent for routine use for > 90 days.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".