A191 TEN YEARS FOLLOW UP OF EARLY ONSET INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE PATIENTS- A SINGLE CENTER RETROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Early onset inflammatory bowel disease (EOIBD) and Very early onset inflammatory bowel disease (VEOIBD) prevalence has been increasing over the last decades. These young patients have been known to have special disease characteristics and disease location. Although it is known that only a low percentage of these patients require biologic treatment after diagnosis, there is only scarce evidence about their long- term outcome and biologic requirements. Aims To assess the ten year outcome of early onset and very early onset IBD patients. Methods We retrospectively reviewed IBD patients diagnosed under 10 years of age, between January 2005 and December 2009, from the British Columbia (BC) Pediatric IBD database. Disease characteristics and symptoms at diagnosis were documented. The disease location and severity at diagnosis were documented according to the Paris classification. Data collected retrospectively included a ten year treatment follow up period, number of hospitalizations, corticosteroid courses and surgeries. These parameters were documented at three time points: after the first year, after five years and ten years. Results 68 patients under the age of 10 were diagnosed with IBD during the study period. 2 patients failed to meet inclusion criteria and were excluded. Median age at diagnosis was 6.06 (IQR 4.5–8.6). 47.7% of patients had Crohn’s disease and 71.2% were males. 63 patients completed the 5 year follow up, and 52 the 10-year period due to lack of follow up or transfer to adult care. After the first year of follow up 0% patients in the VEOIBD group and 5% patients in the EOIBD group were treated with biologic treatment, whereas after the 10-year period 42.3% and 29.6% of patients were treated with biologic therapy respectively (p=0.282). Overall, 4 patients underwent colectomy and 2 a small bowel resection. Conclusions Although the percentage of VEIBD and EOIBD patients receiving biologic treatment after ten years is higher than after the first year, it is still lower than what is reported in the literature in older pediatric IBD patients and adults. 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".