A186 OLDER AGE IS ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED EXTRAINTESTINAL MANIFESTATIONS IN INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The relationship between older age and extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains unknown. Aims This study aims to determine whether older age is associated with increased risk of EIMs in IBD patients. Methods This was a retrospective study of IBD patients seen at the McMaster University Medical Centre, in Hamilton, ON, Canada from 2012–2020. Patients were identified to have the primary outcome of interest if their gastroenterologist documented the presence of any EIM either during the baseline assessment or during the period of follow up. The independent variable, age at start of follow-up, was dichotomized into two categories age >=40 vs. <40.Prior knowledge in combination with forward selection was used to develop a logistic regression model. The variables utilized for the forward selection model included gender, disease duration, and current biologic use. Results A total of 995 IBD patients (625 with CD) were considered for the regression analysis, all for whom the EIM status was recorded. Out of the 995 patients, 270 patients reported at least one EIM – 99 with arthritis/arthralgia, 79 with dermatologic manifestations, 16 with ophthalmic manifestations, 30 with liver manifestations, and 116 with other EIMs. A univariate regression analysis foundincreased odds of EIMs in older patientsas compared to younger patients (odds ratio (OR) 1.41 (95% CI, 1.05 – 1.89)). In the multivariate regression analysis, current biologic use was found to have a significant relationship with odds of having EIMs (OR 1.49; 95% CI, 1.06 – 2.09). After adjustment for biologic use, patients aged 40 or over had 1.46 times higher odds of having EIMs (95% CI 1.03 – 2.05). A sub-analysis of individual EIM categoriesdid not show a significant association with older age. Conclusions Older age is associated with increased risk of EIMs in IBD patients. Patients with EIMs were also more likely to be treated with biological therapies. Clinicians should inquire about the presence of EIMs in older IBD patients. Funding Agencies None
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".