P141 Factors Associated with Time to Clinical Remission in Pediatric Luminal Crohn’s disease: a Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The natural evolution of Crohn’s disease is incompletely understood in the pediatric population. Data on factors influencing time-to-remission are very limited in the literature. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to describe the time to clinical remission in children with Crohn’s disease as well as changes over the past decade and to identify factors associated with time to clinical remission. Methods Patients under 18 years old diagnosed between 2009 and 2019 were included. All data were collected from the patients’ medical records and the CHU Sainte-Justine inflammatory bowel disease registry. Survival analyses and linear regression models were used to assess the impact of clinical, laboratory, endoscopic, histological and therapeutic factors on time to clinical remission. Results 654 patients were included in the study. There was no change in the time to clinical remission over the past decade. Female sex in adolescents (ajusted bêta regression coefficient (aβ)= 31.8 days, p= 0.02), upper digestive tract involvement (aβ= 46.4 days, p= 0.04), perianal disease (aβ= 32.2 days, p= 0.04), presence of active inflammation on biopsies (aβ= 46.7 days, p= 0.01) and oral 5-ASA exposure (aβ=56.6 days, p= 0.002) were all associated with longer time to clinical remission. However, antibiotic exposure (aβ= -29.3 days, p=0.04), increased eosinophils on biopsies (aβ= -29.6 days, p=0.008) and combination of exclusive enteral nutrition and TNF- alpha inhibitors as induction therapy (aβ= -36.8, p=0.04) were associated with shorter time to clinical remission. Figure 1: Kaplan-Meier curve representing time to clinical remission in patients 13 years old and older by sex. Figure 2: Kaplan-Meier curve representing the time to clinical remission of patients according to the first induction treatment administered. Conclusion Time to clinical remission did not improve during the decade and was associated with baseline clinical and histological data and treatment strategies. Combination of enteral nutrition and TNF-alpha inhibitors was associated with faster clinical remission.
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".