Nurse-led early evaluation following corticosteroid prescription in patients with inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The Toronto consensus for management of ulcerative colitis (UC) recommends early evaluation of UC patients 2 weeks after initiation on corticosteroids. A system for early evaluation of inflammatory bowel disease patients was established by specialist nurses in a secondary care centre. Aim To compare outcomes following early evaluation to the previous service. Methods All patients undergoing early evaluation over a 1-year period were prospectively audited and compared to a retrospective cohort of patients receiving prednisolone in the preceding year. Findings Of 140 patients included, 76 (54.3%) underwent early evaluation. All patients in the early evaluation group received drug education and details of the nurse helpline (17.1% of patients did not already have this). Of patients, 81.6% were prescribed Adcal, and 83.9% were on 5-aminosalicylates. Fewer admissions were observed within 6 months following early evaluation (8.6% vs. 23.4%, p=0.013). Conclusion Multiple benefits of early evaluation were observed, including a potential reduction in hospital admissions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".