Increased incidence of systemic serious viral infections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease associates with active disease and use of thiopurines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The magnitude and drivers of the risk of serious viral infections in Inflammatory Bowel diseases (IBD) are unclear. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the incidence and risk factors for systemic serious viral infections in IBD patients. Methods: Using MICISTA, a database detailing prospective characteristics and complications of IBD, we identified patients that were followed for IBD in 2005-2014 outside the context of organ transplantation, HIV infection or chronic viral hepatitis. We estimated incidences of systemic serious viral infections, defined by the need for hospitalization or permanent organ damage. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated using the French hospital database. We performed a case-control study nested in MICISTA for assessing the role of exposure to IBD drugs and IBD clinical activity in the risk of developing infection. Results: We identified 31 patients with serious viral infections among 2645 patients followed for 15,383 person-years. We observed 13 cases of cytomegalovirus, 10 Epstein-Barr virus, 5 varicella zoster virus and 3 herpes simplex virus infections. No deaths occurred. The incidence rate of infections in patients with IBD was 2.02/1000 person-years, and the SIR was 3.09 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.98-4.20; p = 0.0002) in the study population. By multivariate analysis, increased risk of infection was associated with exposure to thiopurines (odds ratio (OR), 3.48; 95% CI, 1.36-8.90; p = 0.009), and clinically active IBD at onset of infection (OR, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.23-9.23; p = 0.02). Conclusions: The incidence of systemic serious viral infections in patients with IBD is tripled compared to general population. Clinically active IBD and exposure to thiopurines are the main drivers of the risk.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".