MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2791878941 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjx180.312

P185 Natural history of Crohn’s disease postoperative recurrence in a referral centre in the era of biologics and therapeutic intensification based on early endoscopic findings

2018· article· en· W2791878941 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anthony Buisson, Lisa Cannon, Konstantin Umanskiy, Roger D. Hurst, Neil Hyman, Akihito Sakuraba, Joel Pekow, Sushila Dalal, R D Cohen, David T. Rubin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCrohn's diseaseColonoscopySurgeryInternal medicineGastroenterologyNatural historyDiseaseTherapeutic endoscopyMultivariate analysisEndoscopyColorectal cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We assessed the prevalence and the risk factors of endoscopic and clinical postoperative recurrence (POR) in the era of biologics and therapeutic intensification based on early endoscopic findings in Crohn’s disease (CD). From a prospectively maintained database, we consecutively enrolled all CD patients who underwent intestinal resection and anastomosis between 2011 and 2016 with colonoscopy at 6 months (6m) and follow-up >6 months. Endoscopic POR was defined as Rutgeerts’ Index (RI) ≥i2. Clinical POR was defined as recurrence of symptoms (HBI > 4) leading to hospitalisation or therapeutic intensification after exclusion of other causes of recurrent symptoms. Overall, 316 patients were included (median follow-up 31 months (range 16.0–45.3)): mean CD duration = 11.7 ± 10.8 years, 50.6% female, 11.7% smokers, 22.8% with perianal lesions and 37.6% with prior intestinal resection. The Montreal classification was: L1 = 35.8 %, L2 = 5.7% and L3 = 58.5%, and B1 = 6.3%, B2 = 48.1% and B3 = 45.6%. The rate of endoscopic POR at 6m was 35.8% (i0 = 50.9%, i1 = 13.3%, i2a = 7.0%, i2b = 13.3%, i3 = 8.2%,i4 = 7.3%). In multivariate analysis, >2 anti-TNF prior to surgery (OR = 3.4 [1.2–9.8], p = 0.026), resection length >30 cm (OR = 1.8 [1.1–3.0], p = 0.025) and surgery for refractoriness to medical therapy (OR = 8.6 [1.5–50.5], p = 0.017) were risk factors of endoscopic POR, while female gender (OR = 0.5 [0.3–0.8], p = 0.006), CD duration >10 years (OR = 0.5 [0.3–0.9], p = 0.049) and combination therapy with anti-TNF and immunosuppressive therapies (IS) (OR = 0.4 [0.2–0.8], p = 0.009) decreased this risk. The rate of clinical POR was 9.3% at 1 year and 24.4% at 2 years. In multivariate analysis, prior intestinal resection (HR = 1.6 [1.1–2.4], p = 0.041), >3 biologics before surgery (HR = 2.7 [1.1–6.5], p = 0.031) and RI≥i2 (HR = 2.5 [1.6–3.9], p < 0.0001) were associated with higher risk of clinical POR. Lower risk for clinical POR was found for CD duration >10 years (HR = 0.6 [0.4–0.9], p = 0.037) and post-op combination therapy (anti-TNF + IS) (HR = 0.5 [0.3–0.9], p = 0.028). In patients who did not receive anti-TNF to prevent endoscopic POR and who experienced endoscopic POR (RI ≥ i2) at 6m, starting combination therapy decreased the risk of clinical POR (HR = 0.4 [0.1–0.9], p < 0.05). In our referral centre, the prevalence of endoscopic POR was the lower than historical reporting, suggesting the positive impact of biological therapy. Combination therapy was the most effective approach to prevent and to treat endoscopic POR. This study also provided external validation of the RI (Figure 1). Kaplan Meier curve showing the value of the Rutgeerts’ index to predict clinical postoperative recurrence in Crohn’s disease despite the large use of biologics and a therapeutic intensification based on early endoscopic findings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→