P270 A global consensus on the definitions, diagnosis and management of fibrostenosing small bowel Crohn’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Small bowel fibrostenotic strictures are common in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD). No global consensus recommendations on definitions, diagnosis and clinical management are available. Methods Several systematic reviews followed by a RAND/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness study on the definitions, diagnosis and clinical management of fibrostenosing CD in clinical practice were performed. A panel of 28 global experts and a patient representative were convened. They assessed a total of 152 candidate items. The items were subsequently evaluated for appropriateness. Results No accurate predictive biomarkers are available for naïve or anastomotic fibrostenosing strictures. Accurate diagnosis of fibrostenosing CD requires cross-sectional imaging which should evaluate bowel wall thickness, luminal narrowing and prestenotic dilatation. A potential inflammatory component should be assessed. Abdominal cross-sectional imaging was considered necessary prior to any treatment decision. The panel proposed an approach to medical, endoscopic, and surgical therapies (Figure 1 and Table 1). Technical characteristics for endoscopic balloon dilation and follow up strategies after successful dilation therapy were identified. Appropriateness, types and performance of different surgical approaches in various settings were evaluated. Conclusion This global consensus provides clinical guidance for the diagnostic and therapeutic management of patients with fibrostenotic CD.
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 | 0.127 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".