A151 FECAL CALPROTECTIN RETURN RATE IN IBD PATIENTS ON INFLIXIMAB
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fecal calprotectin (FC) is a simple, non-invasive test that has been previously considered a reliable marker of inflammatory bowel disease activity (IBD) and closely correlates with endoscopic evidence of mucosal inflammation. Multiple studies have utilized FC to monitor response to therapy, to assess for mucosal healing and to predict flares during remission. However, the utility of FC may be limited by a low completion rate of the test. To evaluate the return rate of FC stool samples in IBD patients and assess factors associated with completion rate. We conducted a retrospective study of all IBD patients at Pacific Gastroenterology Associates, a tertiary ambulatory care clinic in Vancouver, BC, who are receiving infliximab for IBD and received a requisition for FC testing. Patients received a stool collection kit through the patient support program over the period between March 2016 and July 2017. Demographic data and FC results were obtained through a review of the electronic medical record. Multivariable logistic regression was employed to examine what factors (e.g., age, gender, duration of treatment, and disease indication) were associated with a successfully completed FC test. Data was collected from 120 patients with a median age was 32.5 years, 51% were males and 75% had Crohn’s disease. The median duration time on infliximab was 3.5 years. A FC test was successfully completed by 88 patients (73%). A further 12% of patients (14) have been mailed collection kits but have yet to return them. For 9 patients, the allotted number of samples was exceeded and the samples were not processed and the samples were expired for another 9. Both Univariable and multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that a completed FC was significantly associated with older age (p = 0.03). Despite the usefulness of FC for diagnosing and monitoring IBD activity, the test completion rate is lower than anticipated limiting its value as a clinical tool. The present study suggest that older patients are more likely to complete testing. Measures to improve patient compliance with FC testing in the future could improve the utility of this test in clinical practice. None
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".