Short-Term COVID-19 Pandemic-Related Endoscopy Delays Did Not Translate to Deleterious Outcomes for Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) requires frequent endoscopic assessment. It is unknown if measures put in place to reduce the spread of the virus SARS-CoV-2, including the delay of non-urgent patient assessments, resulted in deleterious outcomes for patients with IBD. Therefore, we aimed to determine if delays in endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with an increased risk of adverse IBD outcomes (emergency room, ER presentation, hospitalization, surgery, or escalation of drug therapy). Methods A retrospective cohort study was performed in patients with IBD scheduled for outpatient endoscopies between March and August 2019 and 2020 at two tertiary care centers affiliated with Western University, London, Canada. Data pertaining to endoscopy timing, IBD drug prescription, ER attendance, hospitalization, and surgery were collected. Results A total of 1160 endoscopies (2019, n = 718; 2020, n = 442) occurred during the study periods in 669 (2019) and 414 (2020) patients with IBD, respectively. More endoscopies were delayed in 2020 than 2019 (26.7% vs. 9.7%, respectively, P < 0.0001). Endoscopy delay was not associated with an increased risk of an adverse IBD outcome (OR = 1.23, 95%CI = 0.89–1.34, P = 0.20). Fewer adverse IBD outcomes were seen in the 2020 cohort who had endoscopy delays (n = 33/115, 28.7%) versus those without delay (n = 176/299, 58.9%, P < 0.0001). Conclusion More endoscopy delays occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, delays in general were not associated with adverse IBD outcomes, and in particular, endoscopy delays during the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with fewer deleterious IBD outcomes, suggesting that patients with IBD in need of urgent endoscopy were appropriately identified.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".