Care of the Patient With IBD Requiring Hospitalisation During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The management of IBD has been highly affected in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, with restriction of hospitalisations and unprecedented redeployment of health care resources. Hospital admissions of IBD patients should be limited to reduce the risks of coronavirus transmission. However, delaying hospitalisation of IBD patients with severe or complicated disease may increase the risk of poor outcomes. Delaying surgery in some cases may increase the risk of disease progression, postoperative morbidity, and disease complications. IBD patients who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 may have a higher risk of poor outcomes than the general population, potentially related to concomitant medications, especially corticosteroids. There is no evidence today that IBD patients with COVID-19 have worse outcomes if they receive immunosuppressant medications including thiopurines, biologics, and novel small molecules. This article summarises recommendations by the international membership of IOIBD regarding hospitalisations of IBD patients, either for active or complicated IBD or for severe COVID-19, and for management of IBD patients according to SARS-CoV-2 infectious status.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".