No Change in Surgical and Hospitalization Trends Despite Higher Exposure to Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor in Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the Québec Provincial Database From 1996 to 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Crohn disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) have high health care expenditures because of medications, hospitalizations, and surgeries. We evaluated disease outcomes and treatment algorithms of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in Québec, comparing periods before and after 2010. METHODS: The province of Québec's public health administrative database was used to identify newly diagnosed patients with IBD between 1996 and 2015. The primary and secondary outcomes included time to and probability of first and second IBD-related hospitalizations, first and second major surgery, and medication exposures. Medication prescriptions were collected from the public prescription database. RESULTS: We identified 34,644 newly diagnosed patients with IBD (CD = 59.5%). The probability of the first major surgery increased after 2010 in patients with CD (5 years postdiagnosis before and after 2010: 8% [SD = 0.2%] vs 15% [SD = 0.6%]; P < 0.0001) and patients with UC (6% [SD = 0.2%] vs 10% [SD = 0.6%] ;P < 0.0001). The probability of the second major surgery was unchanged in patients with CD. Hospitalization rates remained unchanged. Patients on anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) medications had the lowest probability of hospitalizations (overall 5-year probability in patients with IBD stratified by maximal therapeutic step: 5-aminosalicylic acids 37% [SD = 0.6%]; anti-TNFs 31% [SD = 1.8%]; P < 0.0001). Anti-TNFs were more commonly prescribed for patients with CD after 2010 (4% [SD = 0.2%] vs 16% [SD = 0.6%]; P < 0.0001) in the public health insurance plan, especially younger patients. Corticosteroid exposure was unchanged before and after 2010. Immunosuppressant use was low but increased after 2010. The use of 5-ASAs was stable in patients with UC but decreased in patients with CD. CONCLUSIONS: The probability of first and second hospitalizations remained unchanged in Québec and the probability of major surgery was low overall but did increase despite the higher and earlier use of anti-TNFs.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".