P880 High incidence of inflammatory bowel disease in Northern Australia: a prospective community population-based Australian incidence study in the Mackay-Isaac-Whitsunday region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Mackay-Isaac-Whitsunday region encompasses 173,892 people within a 400 km (250mile) radius in Queensland, Australia. We aimed to determine the incidence of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) in this region in northern Australia (-21.14°S) and to allow a comparison with southern Australian and New Zealand data (Geelong, Australia -38.14°S; Tasmania -41.43°S and -42.88°S [Launceston and Hobart] and Canterbury, New Zealand -43.46 °S). Methods A prospective observational community population-based IBD study was conducted between 1 June 2017 and 31 May 2018. Primary outcome measures include the crude annual incidence rate of IBD, Crohn's disease (CD), Ulcerative colitis (UC) and infammatory bowel disease unspecified (IBDU), while secondary outcomes includes disease phenotype and behaviour. All new cases were identified through primary health care referrals and public and private hospital referrals into the clinic. All new cases of IBD were prospectively defined using rigorously recognised and accepted criteria and categorised using the Montreal Classification. Results Fifty-six new cases of IBD were identified. Twenty-three were CD, 30 were UC and 3 were IBDU. The crude annual incidence rate per 100 000 for IBD, CD, UC and IBDU was 32.2 (95% confidence interval (CI): 24.78–41.84), 13.23 (95% CI: 8.79– 19.90), 17.25 (95% CI: 12.06–24.67) and 1.73 (95% CI: 0.56–5.35). When directly age-standardised to the World Health Organisation Standard Population Distribution, the overall CD, UC and IBDU incidence were 13.19, 17.34 and 1.85 per 100 000, with an overall age-standardised IBD incidence of 32.38. Conclusion This is the first study to define the incidence of IBD in a Northern Australian cohort and to allow a comparison between North and Southern Australia. The IBD crude is the highest reported in Australia. Like others, we found a high and low incidence of upper gastrointestinal Crohn's disease and complicated disease at diagnosis respectively, likely reflective of the increased availability and early uptake of endoscopic procedures.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".