Association Between Frailty or Sarcopenia and Adverse Outcomes in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: Chronological age often guides the management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Frailty and sarcopenia, which are related but distinct entities that become increasingly prevalent with age, better predict nonsurgical and surgical outcomes in various chronic illnesses. We conducted a systematic review to assess the association between frailty or sarcopenia and adverse nonsurgical outcomes in adult patients with IBD. Methods: Through a systematic literature review of 4 online databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and CINAHL Plus), we identified 16 studies that focused on frailty or sarcopenia and nonsurgical outcomes in IBD. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to determine the quality of included studies. Results: We identified 16 studies: 8 frailty-based and 8 sarcopenia-based studies (14 high-quality and 2 low-quality studies). All results were presented in a summarized narrative format. Frailty predicted all hospitalization-related outcomes (hospitalization, readmission, and length of stay) and mortality-related outcomes. The outcomes of therapeutic efficacy, need for therapy escalation, and infections had mixed results in relation to their association with frailty or sarcopenia. The data regarding sarcopenia and hospitalizations were also equivocal. Conclusion: This systematic review supports the use of frailty indices to predict hospitalization- and mortality-related outcomes in adult patients with IBD. Future research should focus on identifying and validating frailty and sarcopenia tools in IBD to better help predict adverse clinical outcomes and response to therapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".