Systematic Review: Components of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in Inflammatory Bowel Disease—A Potentially Promising but Often Neglected Risk Stratification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The population of older patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] is increasing. Patient age does not fully account for poor outcomes and its clinical utility for risk stratification is limited. Comprehensive geriatric assessment [CGA], comprising a somatic, functional, mental, and social assessment or frailty, could be a predictor tool. AIMS: To systematically review literature on the kind of components of a CGA being used in adult IBD patients and the association of these components with adverse health outcomes. METHODS: An electronic literature search was performed on January 16, 2018, using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CENTRAL, Emcare, and PsycINFO. Longitudinal studies relating somatic, functional, mental, and social assessment or frailty to adverse health outcomes during follow-up in IBD patients were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess individual study quality. RESULTS: Of 4080 identified citations, 27 studies were included, reporting 169 associations. Median sample size was 108 patients (interquartile range [IQR] 60-704). No studies performed subgroup analyses on older patients, and the highest mean age reported was 52.7 years. Somatic and functional assessments were used in three studies, mental in 24, and social in five. No study assessed cognitive status, functional performance, or frailty. In 62 associations [36.7%], components of a CGA were significantly associated with adverse health outcome measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Components of a CGA were associated with adverse health outcomes in IBD patients, but older patients were under-represented. More studies among older patients with IBD are warranted to further establish the clinical impact of a CGA.
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 | 0.018 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".