Natural History and Risk Stratification of Recurrent Crohn’s Disease After Ileocolonic Resection: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prediction of endoscopic postoperative recurrence (POR) and prophylactic treatment based on clinical risk profile have thus far been inconclusive. This study aimed to examine the association between clinical risk profile and the development of endoscopic POR in a Crohn's disease population without postoperative treatment and to identify individual risk factors of endoscopic POR. METHODS: Medical records of 142 patients with Crohn's disease during follow-up after ileocecal or ileocolonic resection without prophylactic treatment at 3 referral centers were reviewed. Endoscopic POR was defined as a modified Rutgeerts score ≥i2b. Clinical risk profiles were distilled from current guidelines. Both uni- and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to assess the relationship between risk profiles and endoscopic POR. RESULTS: Endoscopic POR was observed in 68 out of 142 (47.9%) patients. Active smoking postsurgery (odds ratio [OR], 3.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-7.34; P = 0.02), a Montreal classification of A3 (OR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.07-8.69; P = 0.04), and previous bowel resections (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.07-6.22; P = 0.03) were significantly associated with endoscopic POR. No significant association was observed between endoscopic POR and any guideline defined as a high-/low-risk profile. However, patients with a combination of any 3 or more European Crohns & Colitis Organisation- (OR, 4.87; 95% CI, 1.30-18.29; P = 0.02) or British Society of Gastroenterology-defined (OR 3.16; 95% CI, 1.05-9.49; P = 0.04) risk factors showed increased odds of developing endoscopic POR. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that patients with a combination of any 3 or more European Crohns & Colitis Organisation- or British Society of Gastroenterology-defined risk factors would probably benefit from immediate prophylactic treatment.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".