MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2999024540 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjz203.886

P758 Ileorectal anastomosis vs. ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for the surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis: A Markov decision analysis

2020· article· en· W2999024540 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony de Buck van Overstraeten, Mantaj S. Brar, Sepehr Khorasani, Fahima Dossa, Pär Myrelid

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUlcerative colitisMedicineAnastomosisSurgeryRectumPouchInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) results in decreased postoperative morbidity and better functional outcome but leads to increased risk for rectal cancer compared with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). This study aims to compare IRA with IPAA in UC, using decision analysis. Methods A Markov simulation model was designed to simulate clinical events of IRA and IPAA over a time horizon of 40 years with time cycles of 1 year (Figure 1). The base case was a 35-year-old patient with ulcerative colitis and relatively preserved rectum. Probabilities and utilities, required to populate the model, were derived from observational studies, identified after a systematic literature search using MEDLINE. Primary outcomes were life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of changing variables on the preferred treatment. Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis, using 10 000 samples, was performed to account for uncertainty of variables. Prevalence of rectal cancer, IPAA and IRA failure and the stoma rate were calculated at the end of the time horizon, using markov cohort analysis. Results The model resulted in lower LY (36.22 vs. 37.02) and higher QALYs (33.42 vs. 31.57) for IRA. The results of the Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that IRA was the preferred treatment option in 63% of the samples, accounting for a clinical significant margin of 0.25 QALY (Figure 2). The model was also sensitive to the utility of IRA, IPAA and end-ileostomy. A higher proportion of IRA patients will develop rectal cancer (7.6% vs. 3.2%) and 43.5% of all IRA patients will end with an ileostomy as opposed to 23.0% of all IPAA patients. The study was limited by characteristics inherent to modeling studies, including assumptions necessary to build the model, data input based on best available but often limited evidence and unavoidable extra- and interpolation of data. Conclusion IRA was the preferred treatment option when quality-adjusted life years was the outcome, with higher life years for IPAA. This model highlights that both surgical strategies are useful in ulcerative colitis patients with relatively spared rectum.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→