Risk Factors for Colorectal Cancer in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Management During Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a group of conditions involving inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract. Patients with IBD are at an increased risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC). Current evidence regarding risk factors for CRC in IBD patients and guidelines for IBD treatment upon cancer diagnosis is inconclusive. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate evidence on risk factors resulting in an increased incidence of CRC among IBD patients and modifications made to IBD management during cancer treatment. Methods: The PubMed database was searched from inception to 2019 with an English-language restriction, and two independent reviewers screened the articles for inclusion according to established criteria. Results: Eight studies (five literature reviews and three retrospective cohort studies) were included. Of the eight articles, six reported several risk factors for CRC in IBD patients such as duration of IBD, extent of IBD, co-existing primary sclerosing cholangitis, family history of CRC, age at IBD onset, vitamin D deficiency, and gender. The other two articles discussed IBD management during cancer treatment in the form of suspending immunosuppressive medications and administering those of an anti-inflammatory nature. Discussion: An individualized, case-by-case approach for IBD patients diagnosed with cancer was recommended. No standardized course of treatment was found. Conclusion: Despite the limitations of this review, numerous potential risk factors for CRC in IBD patients were identified. However, a lack of definitive evidence pertaining to modifications made to IBD management during cancer treatment suggests that additional research is needed to draw material conclusions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".