Diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease in Asia: the results of a multinational web-based survey in the 2<sup>nd</sup>Asian Organization for Crohn's and Colitis (AOCC) meeting in Seoul
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: As the number of Asian patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has increased recently, there is a growing need to improve IBD care in this region. This study is aimed at determining how Asian countries are currently dealing with their IBD patients in terms of diagnosis. METHODS: A questionnaire was designed by the organizing committee of Asian Organization for Crohn's and Colitis, for a multinational web-based survey conducted between March 2014 and May 2014. RESULTS: A total of 353 Asian medical doctors treating IBD patients responded to the survey (114 in China, 88 in Japan, 116 in Korea, and 35 in other Asian countries). Most of the respondents were gastroenterologists working in an academic teaching hospital. While most of the doctors from China, Japan, and Korea use their own national guidelines for IBD diagnosis, those from other Asian countries most commonly adopt the European Crohn's Colitis Organisation's guideline. Japanese doctors seldom adopt the Montreal classification for IBD. The most commonly used activity scoring system for ulcerative colitis is the Mayo score in all countries except China, whereas that for Crohn's disease (CD) is the Crohn's Disease Activity Index. The most available tool for small-bowel evaluation in CD patients differs across countries. Many physicians administer empirical anti-tuberculous medications before the diagnosis of CD. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this survey demonstrate that Asian medical doctors have different diagnostic approaches for IBD. This knowledge would be important in establishing guidelines for improving the care of IBD patients in this region.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".