Controversies in Crohn’s Disease Before and After Pouch Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: IPAA is rarely performed in patients with a known diagnosis of Crohn's disease, although it may be done in highly selected patients with an absence of perianal disease or small bowel inflammation. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of Crohn's disease are, however, at increased risk of developing Crohn's disease of the pouch. Crohn's disease of the pouch can also occur in people with a preoperative diagnosis of ulcerative colitis; however, it is unknown whether this phenotype is similar to classic Crohn's disease involving an intact bowel, or whether it is a distinct entity. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe Crohn's disease of the pouch, including luminal inflammation, and fibrostenotic and perforating phenotypes, as well as management of these conditions. RESULTS: Crohn's disease of the pouch can present in similar ways as classic Crohn's disease, classified as either inflammatory, fibrostenotic, or penetrating. Criteria involving the diagnosis of Crohn's disease of the pouch are stringent to prevent unnecessary treatments, because a diagnosis of Crohn's disease after IPAA for presumed ulcerative colitis can cause mental anguish. Treatment of Crohn's disease of the pouch depends on the presenting phenotype, although therapies are similar to classic Crohn's disease. Endoscopic, or even surgical treatment, may be required for fibrostenotic and fistulizing diseases. LIMITATIONS: Crohn's disease of the pouch is a newly described disease of patients who undergo an ileoanal pouch anastomosis; and therefore, most of the evidence comes from retrospective trials in patients with an initial diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. CONCLUSIONS: While Crohn's disease of the pouch is controversial and perhaps a distinct disease within the spectrum of inflammatory bowel diseases, it nonetheless requires long-term medical therapy and close follow-up.
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 | 0.017 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".