MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3007442958 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz047.223

A224 THE MANITOBA LIVING WITH IBD STUDY: MEDICATION ADHERENCE AND MARS-5 VALIDATION

2020· article· en· W3007442958 on OpenAlexaffabout
Judith Stone, Kelcie Witges, Leigh Anne Shafer, Laura E. Targownik, L M Lix, Clove Haviva, John R. Walker, Lesley A. Graff, Kathy Vagianos, Michael Sargent, Çharles N. Bernstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedication adherenceLogistic regressionInternal medicineCohortDemographicsPopulationInflammatory bowel diseaseDiseasePhysical therapyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Medication non-adherence in IBD has previously been reported to be quite variable, ranging from 7 to 73%, and is considered to be an important contributor to disease flares. While there is currently no gold standard for medication adherence reporting in IBD, the Medication Adherence Reporting Scale 5 (MARS-5) has frequently been used in this population, but never validated. Aims This study aimed to analyze medication adherence rates in a cohort of persons with IBD in Manitoba, report predictors of medication non-adherence on self-reported symptoms, and validate the MARS-5 as a medication adherence tool. Methods 55 subjects were prospectively followed with biweekly online surveys in the Manitoba Living with IBD Study. Subjects not taking any medications for IBD or only taking as needed, missing adherence data and those lost to follow-up were excluded, leaving 112 subjects. Descriptive data on demographics, surgeries, IBD medications, medication adherence, and measures of disease activity utilizing IBDSI-SF scores were collected. Mean annual medication adherence percentage, IBDSI-SF(>14=active for Crohn’s,>13=active for UC) and MARS-5 scores were calculated. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine variables associated with medication adherence and to validate the MARS-5. Results Mean age was 42.9 years (SD 12.8), with 71.4% being female. Crohn’s disease (CD) was diagnosed in 67.9%, with 37.5% having undergone at least one abdominal surgery. 70.5% of patients were on 2 or more IBD medications. Mean IBDSI score was 15.5 and mean MARS-5 score was 22.5. 20 (17.9%) patients reported a mean adherence of <90% across all medications- 18 were oral medication users, 1 was on an infusion biologic and 1 on subcutaneous adalimumab. 10 (9.8%) had adherence <80%, all of which were to oral medications. Multivariate regression analysis revealed only a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease (OR 4.62; 95% CI 1.37–15.7; p=0.014) to be a predictor of adherence. Disease activity as defined by IBDSI (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.13–1.45; p=0.139) and fecal calprotectin >250ug/L (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.35–3.11; p=0.724), age >55 (OR 2.37, 95% CI 0.65–8.65; p=0.476), female sex (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.097–1.52; p=0.150) and stress (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.19–2.32; p=0.498) were not shown to be predictors. MARS-5 was compared to percentage adherence, showing moderate correlation (Pearson r=0.46). Logistic regression analysis showed each additional MARS-5 point was associated with a 1.7 times greater odds of >90% adherence. Conclusions We report a highly adherent Manitoba IBD cohort. A diagnosis of CD was the only predicitor of adherence. MARS-5 showed moderate correlation with mean percentage adherence values, suggesting it is a valid assessment tool for determining medication adherence in an IBD population. Funding Agencies None

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)0.004
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 score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare→French-language works237,207→