MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3009003886 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz047.221

A222 EPIDEMIOLOGICAL, PHENOTYPIC AND CLINICAL PATTERNS OF EXTRAINTESTINAL MANIFESTATIONS IN INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE

2020· article· en· W3009003886 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ellina Lytvyak, Brendan P. Halloran, Karen I. Kroeker, Farhad Peerani, Karen Wong, Andrew L. Mason, Aldo J. Montaño‐Loza, Daniel C. Baumgart, Levinus A. Dieleman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInflammatory bowel diseaseCohortUlcerative colitisInternal medicineLogistic regressionGastroenterologyDiseaseEpidemiologyRetrospective cohort studyUnivariate analysisCrohn's diseaseCohort studyMultivariate analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), may affect multiple organ systems. The extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs) occur frequently, considerably increase morbidity and mortality, and strongly influence the quality of life in IBD patients. Aims To establish the all-time prevalence of EIMs in a large cohort of IBD patients and assess risk factors contributing to their development. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of IBD patients followed at the Division of Gastroenterology, University of Alberta, diagnosed between 1954 and 2019. We recorded demographic, clinical, and biochemical data. The EIMs included dermatological, musculoskeletal, ophthalmological, hepatobiliary, urogenital, and pulmonary manifestations. The chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests (median, IQR) were used to evaluate differences. Univariate logistic regression was used to determine the association of EIMs with demographic and disease-specific variables across CD and UC, with predictors (p≤0.05) further incorporated into multivariate regression models. Results We analyzed data of 4493 IBD patients: 2354 with CD and 2139 – with UC, aged 18–96 years. Males were underrepresented in the CD cohort compared to the UC (47.8% vs 52.8%; p=0.001), with longer disease duration (16.3, IQR 16.1 vs 12.3, IQR 12.4 years; p≤0.001). The EIMs were slightly more prevalent in the CD group compared to UC (22.2% vs 20.4%; p=0.134), along with a significantly higher proportion of patients with over two EIMs (4.1% vs 1.7%; p≤0.001). The EIMs’ pattern varied substantially between the IBD subtypes (Figure). In the CD cohort, the most common EIM was peripheral arthropathy (4.1%), followed by ankylosing spondylitis (4.0%) and nephrolithiasis (3.6%). Among CD patients, disease duration ≥20 years (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.17–2.48; p=0.006), iron (OR 1.54, 95%CI 1.13–2.09; p=0.006) and calcium (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.21–4.27; p=0.010) deficiencies were identified as risk factors for EIMs. The UC patients most frequently had primary sclerosing cholangitis (9.6%) with peripheral arthropathy and nephrolithiasis each being present in 2.2% of patients. In the UC cohort, three variables demonstrated the most significant associations with EIMs: male sex (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.32–2.32; p≤0.001), disease duration ≥20 years (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.35–2.74; p≤0.001), and pan-colonic disease extent (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.03–4.36; p=0.041) (Table). Conclusions Our data demonstrate that over one-fifth of IBD patients had at least one EIM over the course of the disease and the EIMs pattern varies substantially across CD and UC. Identification of risk factors allowing prediction of EIMs would increase awareness, assist in their early recognition, and tailor further management. Funding Agencies AbbVie

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→