Increased Hospitalization for IBD Patients Seen in the ER During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, the focus of many health care systems shifted in order to prioritize and allocate resources toward treating those affected by COVID-19. What this has meant for other patient populations remains unclear. We aimed to determine if there have been changes to acute care access for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A retrospective cohort study was performed in IBD patients seen during (March 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020) and before (March 1, 2019 to August 31, 2019) the COVID-19 pandemic. IBD-related emergency room (ER) access, hospitalization, inpatient care and follow-up and post-discharge ER access were assessed. Results A total of 1229 participants were included. A higher proportion of patients accessed ER during the pandemic (44.6% versus 37.2%, P = 0.0097). A higher proportion of hospitalizations resulted from IBD-related ER visits during the pandemic period (41.6% versus 32.4%, OR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.14 to 1.94, P = 0.0047), though length of stay was shorter (7.13 ± 8.95 days versus 10.11 ± 17.19 days, P = 0.015) and use of rescue infliximab was less. No change was seen in inpatient surgical intervention. Despite similar proportions of follow-up appointments post-hospital discharge (pre-pandemic, 77.9% versus pandemic, 78.3%), more ER visits occurred in the first 30 days following hospitalization for patients in the pandemic cohort (24.4% versus 11.1%, P = 0.0015). Conclusion These data highlight the need for ER services and hospitalization amongst IBD patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. This suggests that a return to pre-pandemic IBD care infrastructure is needed to mitigate the need for acute care access.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".