PWE-094 The Prevalence of Anaemia in Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Relation to Disease Activity, as Stratified by Faecal Calprotectin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The prevalence of anaemia in IBD varies significantly between published studies, ranging from 6–74%. However, underlying disease activity, a potential explanation for this variability, has not been accurately correlated with the frequency of anaemia to date. Faecal calprotectin (FC) is a surrogate marker of underlying mucosal inflammation. The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence of anaemia and its correlation with disease activity in IBD, in a large cohort of patients with matched full blood count (FBC) and FC data. Methods Patients with confirmed IBD from the Edinburgh faecal calprotectin registry (EFCR) were identified. Where multiple FCs were available, the most recent result was taken as reference. Blood test results were obtained from the electronic record covering a period one month either side of the FC. The WHO criteria was used to define anaemia (Hb < 130 g/L in men, < 120 g/L in women). A FC value of ≥200 µg/g was used to indicate active disease. The cohort was subdivided into 4 groups: active and inactive Crohn’s disease (CD), active and inactive Ulcerative colitis (UC). Results 1226 patients (771 CD, F = 65%, 455 UC, F = 35%) with matched FC and FBC data were analysed. The median age was 44y (IQR 31–57), median disease duration 102 months (IQR 31–207). Overall, 314/1226 patients (25.6%) were anaemic, 185/314 (58.9%) of which were female. Anaemia was observed more frequently in patients with active as opposed to inactive CD (110/328 [33.5%] vs 65/443 [14.7%], p < 0.0001). This pattern was also seen in patients with UC (129/293 [44%] vs 23/162 [14.2%], p < 0.0001). The prevalence of anaemia in active UC was greater than in active CD (p = 0.014); however, this could be explained by the higher median FC in the UC cohort (900 vs. 618, p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in age or Montreal location (L1 + L3 vs L2, p = 0.16) between the groups. ROC analysis of FC as a predictor of anaemia showed an AUC of 0.69 with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.73 and 0.57 respectively at a cut off of 200 µg/g. Conclusion In this cohort over 25% of patients with IBD were anaemic. There is a clear correlation between disease activity and anaemia in both CD and UC, but this is unrelated to disease distribution in CD. Anaemia in asymptomatic patients should alert clinicians to the possibility of subclinical active mucosal inflammation. These data and the ROC analysis provide further support for optimising disease treatment in IBD, targeting a FC level of < 200 µg/g. Disclosure of Interest None Declared.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".