Comparison of health-related quality of life and disability in ulcerative colitis patients following restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis versus anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Health-related quality of life (HRQL) and disability were compared in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients who underwent restorative proctocolectomy versus patients who received treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: UC patients who underwent restorative proctocolectomy or started anti-TNF treatment between January 2010 and January 2015 were included at two tertiary referral centers. A matched cohort was created using propensity score matching for the covariates disease duration, Montreal classification, age, and sex. HRQL and disability were assessed using the Colorectal Functional Outcome (COREFO), Inflammatory Bowel Disease Disability Index (IBD-DI), EuroQol-5D-3L, and Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaires. RESULTS: In total, 297 patients were included, of whom 205 (69%) patients responded. Fifty-nine pouch patients were matched to 59 anti-TNF-treated patients. Pouch patients reported better general health scores (P=0.042) compared with the anti-TNF group (SF-36). No differences were found for the EuroQol-5D-3L and IBD-DI between the two groups. Pouch patients had significantly higher COREFO scores compared with anti-TNF-treated patients for 'stool frequency' (P<0.001), 'antidiarrheal medication use' (P<0.001), and 'stool-related aspects' (P=0.004), of which the latter was because of a higher perianal skin irritation frequency (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: UC patients who underwent restorative proctocolectomy reported a higher bowel movement frequency and more perianal skin irritation compared with anti-TNF-treated patients, but this did not affect overall disease-specific disability outcomes. Patients in the surgery group reported better outcomes for generic health compared with those in the anti-TNF group.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".