P566. Efficacy and safety of vedolizumab with advancing age in patients with ulcerative colitis: Results from the GEMINI 1 study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Aim of the study was to compare the prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) between patients with IBD and IBS and determine its predictors among IBD patients. Methods: In this cross-sectional study IBD and IBS patients' charts were reviewed in a retrospective manner. 276 IBD patients (172 UC and 104 CD) and 161 age and sex adjusted IBS patients were compared regarding the prevalence of NAFLD using abdominal USG. Age at disease onset, at USG, sex, disease duration, location, and behavior, alcohol-steroid use, and complete blood count, blood levels of fasting lipids, glucose, and acute phase reactants and body mass index (BMI) at the time of USG were noted. Results: None of the subjects had alcohol use more than 20 g/d. The IBD patients' mean ageSD at USG was 44.39 14.14 yr.(52% being female), and of IBS patients 44.11 13.73 yr.(54% being female). Patients in both groups had similar BMI values. The prevalence of NAFLD among IBD patients was significantly higher compared to those with IBS [(36.2% vs. 25.5%, respectively; =5.393, p=0.02); OR: 1.663 (95%CI: 1.08 -2.56)]. There were 100 patients with NAFLD in 276 IBD (33.1% in UC, 41.3% in CD; NS) patients. IBD patients with NAFLD had significantly higher albumin, TG, LDL, glucose, hct, MCV, BMI values and significantly lower ESR compared to those without NAFLD. Besides these disease location, extension, behavior, steroid use, and CRP levels at the time of USG did not show any significant difference (Table Cox-regression analysis disclosed higher glucose (p=0.003) and lower ESR (p=0.042) to be the only independent predictors of NAFLD. Conclusions: In this cross-sectional study the prevalence of NAFLD is higher among IBD compared to age-and sex adjusted IBS patients with similar BMI values. The fact that IBD-NAFLD patients had significantly higher levels of albumin, TG, LDL, glucose, hct, MCV, BMI values and significantly lower ESR compared to those without NAFLD points to nutritional facts rather than inflammatory load in the development of NAFLD in IBD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".