A Role for CXCR3 Ligands as Biomarkers of Post-Operative Crohn’s Disease Recurrence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Crohn's disease [CD] recurrence following ileocolic resection [ICR] is common. We sought to identify blood-based biomarkers associated with CD recurrence. METHODS: CD patients undergoing ICR were recruited across six centres. Serum samples were obtained at post-operative colonoscopy. A multiplex immunoassay was used to analyse 92 inflammation-related proteins [Olink Proteomics]. Bayesian analysis was used to identify proteins associated with increasing Rutgeerts score. Identified proteins were used in receiver operating characteristic [ROC] analysis to examine the ability to identify CD recurrence [Rutgeerts score ≥i2]. Existing single cell data were interrogated to further elucidate the role of the identified proteins. RESULTS: Data from 276 colonoscopies in 213 patients were available. Median time from surgery to first and second colonoscopy was 7 (interquartile range [IQR] 6-9) and 19 [IQR 16-23] months, respectively. Disease recurrence was evident at 60 [30%] first and 36 [49%] second colonoscopies. Of 14 proteins significantly associated with Rutgeerts score, the strongest signal was seen for CXCL9 and MMP1. Among patients on anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs, CXCL9 and CXCL11 were most strongly associated with Rutgeerts score. Both are CXCR3 ligands. Incorporation of identified proteins into ROC analysis improved the ability to identify disease recurrence as compared to C-reactive protein alone: area under the curve [AUC] 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66-0.82] vs 0.64 [95% CI 0.56-0.72], p = 0.012. Single cell transcriptomic data provide evidence that innate immune cells are the primary source of the identified proteins. CONCLUSIONS: CXCR3 ligands are associated with CD recurrence following ICR. Incorporation of novel blood-based candidate biomarkers may aid in identification of CD recurrence.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".