S0216 Rates of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Hispanics Comparable to Non-Hispanic Whites: Results of a Large Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has historically been believed to occur at higher rates among non-Hispanic Whites compared to other ethnicities. However, current epidemiological understanding of IBD within the United States (US) has been drawn from research consisting of primarily non-Hispanic White cohorts with scant ethnoracial diversity. Hispanics are the fastest growing and the largest minority group in the US, yet they remain grossly underrepresented in studies of IBD. With this study, we aimed to better understand the epidemiology, demographics, clinical presentation, and treatment of IBD in the Hispanic population in Los Angeles County. METHODS: Our study was based at Olive View-UCLA Medical Center (OVMC), one of three safety net hospitals that comprise the Los Angeles Department of Health Services (LADHS). We queried pathology reports from 2015 to 2018 for key terms to identify biopsy-confirmed cases of IBD (N = 170) and abstracted pertinent data from electronic health records. Incidence and prevalence for ethnicities were standardized using their respective proportions in the composition of the OVMC patient population. Statistical analyses included two-proportion t-test, analysis of variance, binomial proportion confidence interval, general linear model and logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 170 biopsy-confirmed cases of IBD, Hispanics represented 55% of all patients. The annual incidence rate per 100,000 patients for IBD among Hispanics was 175 (95% confidence interval [CI] 127–240) vs. 113 (95% CI 62–200) among non-Hispanic Whites. The prevalence of IBD per 100,000 patient-years was 418 (95% CI 341–512) for Hispanics and 557 (95% CI 431–739) for non-Hispanic Whites. In the subset with Crohn’s disease, smoking rates were significantly lower in Hispanics as compared to non-Hispanic Whites (12.9 vs 62.9%, P = 0.033). There was no significant difference between the two ethnic groups with regard to medical treatment, IBD-related surgery, presenting symptoms, or Montreal classification of disease. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge this is the largest US-based study of Hispanics with biopsy-confirmed IBD. The findings, herein, indicate that the incidence and prevalence of IBD among Hispanics in the US is higher than previously reported and comparable to rates among non-Hispanic Whites.Table 1.: Ethnic background of patients with biopsy-confirmed IBD, Olive View-UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles County, 2015–2018Table 2.: Demographics of Hispanic and NHW patients with biopsy-confirmed IBD, Olive View-UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles County, 2015–2018
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".