COVID-19 Pandemic: Which IBD Patients Need to Be Scoped—Who Gets Scoped Now, Who Can Wait, and how to Resume to Normal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endoscopy is an essential component in the management of inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. There is a risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission during endoscopic procedures. The International Organization for the study of IBD [IOIBD] has developed 11 position statements, based on an online survey, that focus on how to prioritise endoscopies in IBD patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, alternative modes for disease monitoring, and ways to triage the high number of postponed endoscopies after the pandemic. We propose to pre-screen patients for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and test for SARS-CoV-2 before endoscopy if available. High priority endoscopies during pandemic include acute gastrointestinal bleed, acute severe ulcerative colitis, new IBD diagnosis, cholangitis in primary sclerosing cholangitis, and partial bowel obstruction. Alternative modes of monitoring using clinical symptoms, serum inflammatory markers, and faecal calprotectin should be considered during the pandemic. Prioritising access to endoscopy in the post-pandemic period should be guided by control of COVID-19 in the local community and availability of manpower and personal protective equipment. Endoscopy should be considered within 3 months after the pandemic for patients with a past history of dysplasia and endoscopic resection for dysplastic lesion. Endoscopy should be considered 3-6 months after the pandemic for assessment of postoperative recurrence or new biologic initiation. Endoscopy can be postponed until after 6 months of pandemic for routine IBD surveillance and assessment of mucosal healing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".