Mild neoterminal ileal post‐operative recurrence of Crohn’s disease conveys higher risk for severe endoscopic disease progression than isolated anastomotic lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are conflicting data assessing the impact of isolated post-operative anastomotic inflammation on future disease progression. The aim of this study was to determine the relative risk of severe disease progression in post-operative Crohn's disease (CD) patients with isolated anastomotic disease. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of adult CD patients undergoing ileocolonic resection between 2009 and 2020. Patients with a post-operative ileocolonoscopy ≤18 months from surgery and ≥1 subsequent ileocolonoscopy were included. Disease activity was assessed using the modified Rutgeerts' score (RS). Primary outcome was severe endoscopic progression, defined as i3 or i4 disease, on immediate subsequent ileocolonoscopy and during entire post-operative follow-up. Secondary outcome was surgical recurrence. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-nine CD patients had an ileocolonoscopy ≤18 months from surgery, index RS of i0-i2b and ≥1 subsequent ileocolonoscopy. At index ileocolonoscopy, 34.7% had i0 disease, 16.1% i1, 24.6% i2a and 24.6% i2b. On multivariable logistic regression, i2b disease was associated with severe endoscopic progression compared to i0 or i1 (aOR 5.53; P < 0.001) and i2a disease patients (aOR 2.63; P = 0.03). However, i2a disease did not confer increased risk compared to i0 or i1 disease (P = 0.09). Furthermore, i2b patients experienced severe endoscopic progression significantly earlier than i0 or i1 disease (aHR 4.68; P < 0.001), whereas i2a disease did not differ from i0 or i1 disease (P = 0.25). Surgical recurrence was not associated with index RS i0-i2b (P = 0.86). CONCLUSION: Post-operative ileal disease recurrence, not isolated anastomotic inflammation, confers increased risk for severe endoscopic disease progression. Location of CD recurrence may impact optimal management strategies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".