P169 DEFINITION OF REMISSION IN INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE: ASSESSMENT OF PATIENT AND PHYSICIAN PERSPECTIVES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background A primary goal in IBD management is achieving disease remission; however, patient (pt)-physician alignment on this goal is unclear. International online surveys were conducted to gain insights into pts’ and physicians’ perspectives on real-world management of IBD. Herein, we report survey findings pertaining to their understanding and perceptions of disease remission in IBD. Methods Surveys were completed online by pts and physicians in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK, and US. Using a mixed-recruitment method, pts were identified by physicians, pt advocacy groups, and panels, while physicians were identified by recruitment agencies and panels. Eligible pts were aged ≥18 y who were diagnosed with and received treatment for Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) and had not undergone surgery for UC. Eligible physicians were gastroenterologists who had treated pts with CD or UC (≥12 each) in the last month, were responsible for treatment decisions of their IBD pts, and for whom ≥30% of their IBD pts had moderate or severe disease per prespecified clinical criteria. A 1:1 CD:UC ratio was targeted for the pt survey. Alignment between pts and physicians on remission definitions and pt-physician communication about remission was assessed. Physicians’ estimates of remission rates in their moderate/severe IBD pts receiving biologic therapy and their satisfaction (1=very dissatisfied to 7=very satisfied) with remission rates with current IBD treatments also were reported. Results A total of 2398 IBD pts (1368 CD [40% male], 1030 UC [45% male]) and 654 physicians completed the surveys. Mean pt age was 42 y (CD) and 44 y (UC). Physicians had mean monthly caseloads of 42.9 (CD) and 43.3 (UC). The most common primary care settings were university/teaching hospitals (41%), private practices (31%), and regional/community hospitals (20%). Nearly one quarter of pts reported never having discussed remission with their physician; only 7% of physicians reported that they typically did not discuss remission with their pts. Pts most commonly defined remission as symptom resolution (45%), whereas most physicians defined remission through test results (64% CD, 70% UC), including colonoscopies (56% CD, 58% UC), biopsies (36%, 37%), and biochemical tests (8%, 6%). Most pts (62% CD, 64% UC) had never heard of the term “mucosal healing.” Despite low physician-reported remission rates (CD: 37%–54%; UC: 37%–55%), 25% and 36% of physicians reported high satisfaction (score ≥6) with CD and UC remission rates, respectively. Conclusions This international survey demonstrated differences in pts’ and physicians’ definitions of IBD remission and in their understanding of the role of histologic remission in IBD. The findings highlight the need for improved pt-physician communication and education regarding remission, which may improve adherence and outcomes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".