Early‐onset versus late‐onset Crohn’s disease: An Italian cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Disease heterogeneity, according to the age at onset, has been reported in Crohn’s disease (CD). Objective This study aimed to compare natural history in CD patients diagnosed ≤17 (early onset (EO)) versus ≥60 (late onset (LO)) years old. Methods EO CD and LO CD patients referred to two Italian inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) centres were included. Relevant data comprised sex, current smoking, disease location and behaviour, IBD family history, extra‐intestinal manifestations and use of medical/surgical therapy during the follow‐up period. Results Among 2321 CD patients, 160 met the inclusion criteria: 92 in the EO and 68 in the LO group (mean follow‐up 11.7 ± 7.7 years). Family history of IBD was more frequent in EO compared to LO CD (26% vs. 4%; p < 0.0001). Ileocolonic, upper gastrointestinal and perianal involvement occurred more frequently in EO compared to LO CD (56% vs. 21%, p < 0.0001; 17% vs. 3%, p < 0.01; and 38% vs. 19%, p < 0.01, respectively). Progression to complicated disease occurred more frequently in EO CD (40% vs. 10% p < 0.005), with an increased use of corticosteroids and anti‐tumour necrosis factor alpha agents within 10 years since diagnosis (81% vs. 58%, p = 0.004, and 36% vs. 16%, p = 0.01, respectively), while the cumulative probability of surgery did not differ between the two groups. Conclusions Patients with EO CD are more likely to develop a more aggressive disease with perianal involvement and a greater use of drug treatment compared to those with LO CD, without carrying an increased need for surgery.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".