Conditional risk of diverticulitis after non-operative management.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to describe conditional recurrence-free survival (RFS) of patients after an index episode of diverticulitis managed without surgery, and to estimate the difference in conditional RFS for diverticulitis according to specific risk factors. METHODS: This was a multicentre retrospective cohort study including all patients managed without surgery for acute sigmoid diverticulitis at two university-affiliated hospitals in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Conditional RFS for diverticulitis was estimated over 10 years of follow-up. A Cox proportional hazards model was performed at the index episode and again 2 years later. RESULTS: In total, 991 patients were included for analysis. The 1, 2- and 3-year actuarial diverticulitis RFS rates were 81·1, 71·5 and 67·5 per cent respectively. Compared with the 1-year actuarial RFS rate of 81·1 per cent, the 1-year conditional RFS increased with each additional year survived recurrence-free, reaching 96·0 per cent after surviving the first 4 years recurrence-free. A similar phenomenon was observed for 2-year diverticulitis conditional RFS. Lower age (hazard ratio (HR) 0·98, 95 per cent c.i. 0·98 to 0·99), Charlson Co-morbidity Index score of 2 or above (HR 1·78, 1·32 to 2·39) and immunosuppression (HR 1·85, 1·38 to 2·48) were independently associated with recurrence of diverticulitis from the index episode. At 2 years from the index episode, immunosuppression was no longer associated with diverticulitis recurrence (HR 1·02, 0·50 to 2·09). CONCLUSION: The conditional RFS of patients with diverticulitis improved with each year that was survived recurrence-free. Although several factors at index presentation may be associated with early recurrence, the conditional probability of recurrence according to many of these risk factors converged with time.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".