Outcomes Following Pouch Formation in Paediatric Ulcerative Colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Contemporary pediatric data on pouch outcomes are sparse, especially in the era of laparoscopic surgeries. We aimed to assess outcomes and predictors in children with ulcerative colitis/inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-unclassified who underwent colectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study from 17 IBD centers affiliated with the pediatric IBD Porto group of ESPGHAN. An electronic REDcap system was used to collate baseline characteristics, demographic, clinical, management and surgical data, short- and long-term outcomes, and to identify potential predictors of pouch outcome. RESULTS: Of the 129 patients included, 86 (67%) developed pouchitis during follow-up of median 40 months (interquartile range 26-72), of whom 33 (26%) with chronic pouchitis. Patients operated on by surgeons performing <10 pouch surgeries/year had a higher rate of chronic pouchitis (11/27 [41%] vs 8/54 [15%], P = 0.013) on both univariable and multivariable analyses and also associated with time to pouchitis (P = 0.018) and chronic pouchitis (P = 0.020). At last follow-up, overall pouch performance was rated good/excellent in 86 (74%) patients. Time from colectomy to pouch formation was not associated with pouch outcomes. Despite higher rate of nonsevere surgical complications among children undergoing colectomy at <10 years of age (7/16 [44%] vs 10/92 [11%], P = 0.003), functional outcome and pouchitis rate did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Pouchitis rate in children with ulcerative colitis/IBD unclassified is high. Surgeon experience is the major modifiable risk factor for pouch outcome. Our analyses suggest that pouch surgery can also be performed successfully in young children.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".