Granulomatous Crohn's disease follows a more aggressive clinical course?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective This study aimed to define and compare the clinical course of granulomatous (GCD) vs non‐granulomatous Crohn's disease (NGCD). Methodology All consecutive patients who had undergone small or large bowel resection for Crohn's disease from 2000 to 2008 in a District General Hospital were collated retrospectively for histological evidence of GCD vs NGCD. Patients were assessed using the Montreal classification and data were collected for the number of recurrences requiring hospital admissions, re‐operations and septic complications over a follow‐up period of 10 or more years. Results Fifty‐four patients were included in the study, 28 had GCD and 26 NGCD. The mean follow up for both groups was 13.5 years. No patients were excluded. Patients with GCD were younger but there were no other differences in age, sex, family history and smoking status. In patients with confirmed granulomata on resectional histology, there was an increased incidence of subsequent intra‐abdominal abscess formation after surgery (P < .05), an increased number of subsequent operations (P < .05) and shorter time to recurrences requiring hospital admissions (P < .05). The granulomatous cohort of patients had an apparent but not significant increased incidence of fistulating disease and stoma formation. Conclusions This study showed an increased risk of postoperative complications in patients with granulomatous Crohn's disease. Further studies are required to confirm that presence of granulomas in Crohn's disease is predictive of a poor prognosis and the need for more aggressive medical management.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".