MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999769422 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjz203.611

P482 Patient and physician perspectives on the management of inflammatory bowel disease: Disease remission and durability of treatment

2020· article· en· W2999769422 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anita Afzali, Alessandro Armuzzi, Yoram Bouhnik, Brian Bressler, Ailsa Hart, David T. Rubin, Miquel Sans, Britta Siegmund, Charles A. Sninsky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUlcerative colitisInflammatory bowel diseaseDiseaseInternal medicinePrivate practiceCrohn's diseaseFamily medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Achieving disease remission and selecting durable maintenance therapy are essential treatment goals in IBD. To gain insight into real-world management of IBD from both the patient (pt) and physician perspective, we conducted international online surveys. Here we report results related to patients’ and physicians’ beliefs, experience, and expectations regarding IBD remission and durability of IBD treatments. Methods Surveys were fielded in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK, and the USA. The mixed-recruitment methodology was used; patients were recruited by physicians, patient advocacy groups, and panels; physicians were recruited by recruitment agencies and panels. Patients aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) who had received treatment for IBD and had not undergone surgery for UC were eligible. Physicians were eligible to participate if they were gastroenterologists who had treated ≥12 patients with CD and ≥12 patients with UC in the last month, were responsible for treatment decisions for their IBD patients, and for whom ≤70% of their IBD patients had a mild disease (based on prespecified clinical criteria). A 1:1 ratio of CD:UC patients was targeted for the patient survey. Results Surveys were completed by 2398 IBD patients (1368 CD, 1030 UC) and 654 physicians. Mean age was 43 years and 45 years for patients with CD and UC, respectively; 60% and 55% were female. Physicians had a mean monthly caseload of 42.9 CD patients and 43.3 UC patients; most physicians were in a university/teaching hospital (41%), private practice (31%), or regional/community hospital (20%). Most patients (78%) reported discussing remission with their physician, whereas nearly all physicians (93%) reported they typically discussed remission. Remission was most frequently defined by resolution of symptoms for patients (45%) and by test results for physicians (64% for CD, 70% for UC). Most patients felt that their IBD was only partially controlled (61%) with their current treatment; >80% expected to be on treatment in 5 y, and only 33% of patients were satisfied with this expectation. Although ~30% of patients expected their current treatment to control their IBD for ≥5 y, only 7% of physicians had this expectation; most physicians estimated a response duration of just 1–2 y with current treatments. Most physicians reported moderate satisfaction with response duration (60% for CD patients, 71% for UC) and remission rate (72% for CD, 81% for UC) with current treatments. Conclusion This international survey demonstrated both patients and physicians discuss remission but more patients expect sustained control of their disease. This lack of concordance in expectations may hinder communication and treatment optimisation. Better alignment between patients and physicians on treatment goals and measures of success may improve IBD management.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crohn s and ColitisSame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207