Prevalence and Progression of Incidental Terminal Ileitis on Non-diagnostic Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Incidentally diagnosed terminal ileitis [IDTI] has been reported among asymptomatic persons undergoing non-diagnostic colonoscopy. The purpose of our study was to determine the prevalence and long-term outcomes of asymptomatic terminal ileitis. METHODS: We performed a systematic review using three biomedical databases [Medline, Embase, and Web of Science] and relevant scientific meeting abstracts. We identified observational studies that reported the prevalence of IDTI in adults undergoing screening or polyp surveillance colonoscopy and/or the long-term outcomes of such lesions. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to determine the pooled prevalence rate of IDTI. The progression of IDTI to overt Crohn's disease [CD] was also described. RESULTS: Of 2388 eligible studies, 1784 were screened after excluding duplicates, 84 were reviewed in full text, and 14 studies were eligible for inclusion. Seven studies reported the prevalence of IDTI in 44 398 persons undergoing non-diagnostic colonoscopy, six studies reported follow-up data, and one study reported both types of data. The pooled prevalence rate of IDTI was 1.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1-21.8%) with significant heterogeneity [I2 = 99.7]. Among patients who had undergone non-diagnostic colonoscopy and had follow-up data [range 13-84 months reported in five studies], progression to overt CD was rare. CONCLUSIONS: IDTI is not uncommon on non-diagnostic colonoscopies. Based on limited data, the rate of its progression to overt CD seems low, and watchful waiting is likely a reasonable strategy. Further long-term follow-up studies are needed to inform the natural history of incidental terminal ileitis, factors that predict progression to CD, and therapeutic implications.
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".