Systematic review with meta‐analysis: proximal disease extension in limited ulcerative colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Disease extent in ulcerative colitis is one of the major factors determining prognosis over the long-term. Disease extent is dynamic and a proportion of patients presenting with limited disease progress to more extensive forms of disease over time. AIM: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies reporting on extension of ulcerative colitis to determine frequency of disease extension in patients with limited ulcerative colitis at diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search to identify studies on disease extension of ulcerative colitis (UC) and predictors of disease progression. RESULTS: Overall, 41 studies were eligible for systematic review but only 30 for meta-analysis. The overall pooled frequency of UC extension was 22.8% with colonic extension being 17.8% at 5 years and 31% at 10 years. Extension was 17.8% (95% CI 11.2-27.3) from E1 to E3, 27.5% (95% CI 7.6-45.6) from E2 to E3 and 20.8% (95% CI 11.4-26.8) from E1 to E2. Rate of extension was significantly higher in patients younger than 18 years (29.2% (CI 6.4-71.3) compared to older patients (20.2% (CI 13.0-30.1) (P<.0001). Risk of extension was significantly higher in patients from North America (37.8%) than from Europe (19.6%) (P<.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, approximately one quarter of patients with limited UC extend over time with most extension occurring during the first 10 years. Rate of extension depends on age at diagnosis and geographic origin. Predicting those at high risk of disease extension from diagnosis could lead to personalised therapeutic strategies.
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 | 0.017 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".