MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

849 Risk of Reoccurrence of Perianal Fistulas in Patients With Crohn’s Disease in the United States: A Retrospective Claims Database Study

2019· article· en· W2979540309 on OpenAlexaff
Haridarshan Patel, Dominick Latrémouille-Viau, Didier Serre, Trevor Lissoos, K.D. Null, G Owen, Sarah Campbell‐Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnorectal Disease Treatments and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studyCohortCrohn's diseaseInternal medicineDiseaseCohort studySurgeryDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Perianal fistulas (PAF) in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) are associated with morbidity and impaired quality of life. Limited data is available on the risk of PAF among patients with CD and long-term PAF relapse rates. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study on US adult patients with CD identified in an US administrative claims database (2001-2018) was conducted. Patients with PAF were identified using diagnosis or procedure codes in medical claims. A PAF episode, starting from the first PAF occurrence, was defined as consecutive PAF-related codes ≤120 days of each other. PAF reoccurrence was defined as a new PAF-related code occurring after a PAF-free period of ≥180 days (proxy for remission) following the end of the first PAF episode. Time from the 180-day PAF-free period to PAF reoccurrence was estimated using KM analyses. A similar analysis was conducted in CD patients with a PAF-free period of ≥360 days. RESULTS: 5,482 patients with a PAF-free period of ≥180 days after their first PAF episode were included (CD-PAF cohort; mean age = 43.8 years and proportion of males = 51.8%). Over a mean follow-up duration of 2.6 years, 28.8% had a PAF reoccurrence. Estimated rates of PAF reoccurrence in these CD-PAF patients were 23.7%, 32.0%, 42.1% and 47.8% at 1, 2, 5, and 10 years, respectively (Table 1). In the 12 months before first PAF occurrence, 70.8% of CD-PAF patients received non-biologic therapies: corticosteroids (46.5%), antibiotics (44.4%), aminosalicylates (5-ASA) (32.5%) and immunomodulators (IMDs)/immunosuppressants (IMs) (21.1%); 25.3% used ≥1 biologic therapy; and 19.2% had ≥1 CD-related surgery. In the 4 months after first PAF occurrence, 66.5% of CD-PAF patients received non-biologic therapies: antibiotics (39.6%), corticosteroids (30.3%), 5-ASA (27.4%) and IMDs/IMs (22.1%); 31.8% used ≥1 biologic therapy; and 47.2% had ≥1 CD-related surgery. In patients with a longer PAF-free period of ≥360 days (CD-PAF360 cohort), a numerically lower proportion had a PAF reoccurrence (20.5%) and estimated rates of reoccurrence were numerically lower at every time point (32.6% at 5 years and 39.4% at 10 years) vs the CD-PAF cohort. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective US claim database analysis, the 5-year and 10-year rates of PAF reoccurrence following PAF remission of ≥180 days were 42.1% and 47.8% among patients with CD, respectively. Patients achieving longer-term remission (≥360 days) had numerically lower rates of PAF reoccurrence.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicAnorectal Disease Treatments and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207