Indications, Postoperative Management, and Long-term Prognosis of Crohn’s Disease After Ileocecal Resection: A Multicenter Study Comparing the East and West
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Crohn's disease (CD) phenotype differs between Asian and Western countries and may affect disease management, including decisions on surgery. This study aimed to compare the indications, postoperative management, and long-term prognosis after ileocecal resection (ICR) in Hong Kong (HK) and the Netherlands (NL). METHODS: CD patients with primary ICR between 2000 and 2019 were included. The endpoints were endoscopic (Rutgeerts score ≥i2b and/or radiologic recurrence), clinical (start or switch of inflammatory bowel disease medication), and surgical recurrences. Cumulative incidences of recurrence were estimated with a Bayesian multivariable proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Eighty HK and 822 NL patients were included. The most common indication for ICR was penetrating disease (HK: 32.5%, NL: 22.5%) in HK vs stricturing disease (HK: 32.5%, NL: 48.8%) in the NL (P < .001). Postoperative prophylaxis was prescribed to 65 (81.3%) HK patients (28 [35.0%] aminosalicylates [5-aminosalicylic acid]; 30 [37.5%] immunomodulators; 0 biologicals) vs 388 (47.1%) NL patients (67 [8.2%] 5-aminosalicylic acid; 187 [22.8%] immunomodulators; 69 [8.4%] biologicals; 50 [6.1%] combination therapy) (P < .001). Endoscopic or radiologic evaluation within 18 months was performed in 36.3% HK vs 64.1% NL (P < .001) patients. No differences between both populations were observed for endoscopic (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-1.21), clinical (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.62-1.32), or surgical (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.31-1.13) recurrence risks. CONCLUSION: The main indication for ICR in CD patients is penetrating disease in HK patients and stricturing disease in NL patients. Although considerable pre- and postoperative management differences were observed between the two geographical areas, the long-term prognosis after ICR is similar.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".