Real world evidence of the association between medication and life expectancy in elderly inflammatory bowel disease: a population-based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Life expectancy in people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has increased but remains shorter than in people without IBD. We describe the life expectancy associated with IBD therapies among the growing number of older adults living with IBD. METHODS: Older adults (≥ 65 years) with IBD were identified from population-based health administrative data using a validated algorithm. Life expectancy on patients' 65th birthday, stratified by sex, was calculated using a period life table approach from age- and sex-specific mortality rates among patients receiving immunomodulator monotherapy, biologic monotherapy, combination therapy, mesalamine, systemic steroids, and no therapy. RESULTS: Among 28,260 older adults with IBD (239,125 person-years of follow-up), life expectancy at 65 years was longest for patients taking mesalamine (females: 22.1 years, 95% CI 21.8-22.5; males: 19.6 years, 95% CI 19.3-20.0) and shortest for patients taking steroids (females: 11.7 years, 95% CI 11.0-12.4; males 10.3 years, 95% CI 9.7-10.8). Life expectancy was similar for patients receiving immunomodulator monotherapy and biologic monotherapy. Immunomodulator monotherapy was associated with a reduction in life expectancy compared to combination therapy by 5.1 (95% CI 2.3-7.8) in females and 2.8 years (95% CI 0.1-5.5) in males. CONCLUSIONS: Life expectancy varies across therapies used for IBD, with differences likely arising from a combination of medication effectiveness, safety profiles, disease severity, and comorbid conditions. These considerations should be balanced when deciding on a therapeutic approach for the management of IBD in older adults.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".