MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922194694 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.028

A29 THE EVOLVING INCIDENCE OF INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE: WHAT WILL THE FUTURE HOLD?

2019· article· en· W2922194694 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephanie Coward, Eric I. Benchimol, Fiona Clement, Glen Hazlewood, M Ellen Kuenzig, Kerry McBrien, R. Deardon, Remo Panaccione, Cynthia H. Seow, Joseph W. Windsor, Gilaad G. Kaplan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)Poisson regressionMedicineInflammatory bowel diseasePopulationUlcerative colitisConfidence intervalDemographyRate ratioMortality rateEpidemiologyDiseaseInternal medicineEnvironmental healthMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Incidence of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)—Crohn’s Disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC)—is decreasing in some provinces, but increasing in pediatrics. Even with this decrease in incidence, prevalence will continue to rise until incidence equals to mortality. Decision makers require accurate data on the current and future burden of IBD for resource planning to ensure IBD patients receive proper care. 1. Assess current and forecast future IBD incidence trends; 2. determine IBD mortality rates; and, 3. use mortality to calculate the threshold that incidence must approximate to stabilize prevalence. Using population-based data from Alberta, annual incidence (per 100,000 persons) is calculated from 2010 to 2015, stratified by pediatric (<18), adult (18–64), and elderly (65+). Incidence is calculated for CD and UC separately, and for total IBD, which includes IBD type unclassifiable. Data is age- and sex-standardized to annual Canadian populations. Poisson regression (or negative binomial regression, when appropriate) is used to analyze historical trends and calculate average annual percentage change (AAPC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Log-linear models are used to forecast incidence to 2030 with 95% prediction intervals (PI). Overall standardized mortality ratios (SMR) with 95% CI are calculated for IBD, CD, and UC from 2010 to 2015—as compared to the Canadian population. The incidence threshold is calculated to determine an incidence rate that approximates mortality, which would stabilize IBD prevalence. Table 1 provides age-stratified IBD, CD, and UC incidence and AAPC. Overall IBD incidence is stable from 2010 to 2015 (AAPC:−2.0, 95%CI: −4.2,0.2). However, subtype-specific IBD incidence in adults is decreasing for CD (AAPC:−5.5; 95%CI: −7.7,−3.2) and UC (AAPC:−4.8; 95%CI: −8.6,−0.8). Figure 1 shows historical and forecasted incidence of IBD, CD, and UC. The SMR of IBD is 1.41 (95%CI: 1.34,1.48); CD is 1.48 (95%CI: 1.38,1.59); and, UC is 1.20 (95%CI: 1.09,1.31). The threshold when incidence approximates mortality—so that the prevalence of IBD stabilizes—is 7.8 per 100,000. Forecasting models show that IBD incidence in 2030 (21.6; 95%PI: 10.9,32.4) exceeds this threshold. The 2030 forecasted incidence (21.6 per 100,000 persons) exceeds the threshold required to reduce the prevalence of IBD. Future interventional research focused on prevention is urgently required to mitigate the rising burden of IBD. Table 1: Incidence and AAPC of IBD, CD, and UC stratified by age Figure 1: Historical and forecasted incidence (per 100,000 persons) of inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis. Historical data is from 2010 to 2015 and forecasted from 2016 to 2030, with 95% prediction intervals represented by shaded area around forecasted incidence (dashed line). CIHRIzaak Walton Killam Memorial Scholarship; Eyes High Doctoral Recruitment Scholarship

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.008

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207