Multimorbidity among inflammatory bowel disease patients in a tertiary care center: a retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic systemic inflammatory condition that debilitate the quality of life. Multimorbidity, a concept only beginning to emerge in IBD, is defined as two or more comorbidities present in the same individual. Notably, we used the term multimorbidity to refer to two or more comorbidities excluding IBD. Multimorbidity is linked to decreased quality of life, poorer disease outcomes, increased hospitalizations, healthcare costs and polypharmacy complications. We aim to estimate the prevalence of multimorbidity and to explore its effect on IBD patients. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all IBD patients registered in a validated web-based registry since February 2018. Data on patient demographics, comorbidities, IBD and extraintestinal complications were obtained. We analyzed the date using univariate, bivariate and multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Among 767 IBD patients, 54.6% had Crohn's disease (CD), 41.9% had ulcerative colitis (UC) and 3.5% had IBD unclassified. The median age at diagnosis was 22 years (IQR: 15-29). Males compromised 50.2% of patients. According to the Montréal IBD classification, most UC patients had moderate UC (47.8%) while most CD patients had non-stricturing non-penetrating CD (49.8%). Overall, 10.3% IBD patients had multimorbidity and 23.9% had at least one comorbidity. The most common comorbidity was diabetes mellitus (4.9%) followed by essential hypertension (4%) and iron deficiency anemia (3%). Female gender (P = 0.008) and UC (P = 0.005) were more likely to have multimorbidity. Multimorbid IBD patients were more likely to develop thrombosis than non-multimorbid peers (16.7% vs. 1.6%; P < 0.001). Higher age at diagnosis (OR = 1.04, 95%CI: 1.01-1.07) and having a history of thrombosis (OR = 7.82, 95% CI: 2.67-22.92) are associated with increased risk of multimorbidity. CONCLUSION: Multimorbidity is not uncommon among IBD patients, especially females diagnosed with UC. Our findings indicate that future studies are needed to explore the effects of multimorbidity on IBD patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".