MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4323350703 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwac036.221

A221 EFFECT OF PROXIMITY TO A SPECIALTY TERTIARY CENTRE ON OUTCOMES IN INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE: A POPULATION-BASED RETROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY

2023· article· en· W4323350703 on OpenAlexaffabout
M Mikail, Q Alkhateeb, V Pope, Reena Khanna

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studyPancolitisInflammatory bowel diseaseCohortRural areaPopulationInternal medicineHealth carePediatricsDiseaseColonoscopyEnvironmental healthPathologyColorectal cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The etiology of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is unknown; however, developed nations such as Canada ranking amongst the highest worldwide. With many diseases patients in urban and rural areas have different access to care and resources. Purpose To describe the differences in outpatient healthcare utilization, use of biologic agents and complication of IBD based on proximity to a tertiary health care centre. Method A retrospective cohort study was conducted comparing IBD patients seen in IBD clinics at affiliated with Western University in London, Canada between August 2019 – December 2019. IBD patients were compared on their use of outpatient healthcare utilization, biologic agents and IBD complications based on their proximity to a tertiary care centre (>100 km and <100 km). Patients residing >100 km from a tertiary centre were termed “rural” while <100 km from a tertiary centre were termed “urban.” Retrospective chart review occurred over a six-month period between January to June 2021. Result(s) A total of 481 were reviewed. Of those, 97 (UC, n=29; CD, n=68) and 95 (UC, n=30; CD, n=65) met inclusion for the urban and rural groups respectively. Patient demographics were similar between the two groups except IBD disease location with pancolitis seen more commonly in urban patients compared to ileocolonic in rural patients (urban, n=39; rural, n=34). IBD patients in both groups had similar number of appointments (urban, n=20.1 ± 13.8; rural, n=17.5 ± 12.1) and endoscopic procedures (urban, n= 4.9 ± 3.1; rural, n= 4.7 ± 3.2) with their gastroenterologists. More urban patients were managed with no therapy for their IBD (urban, n=16; rural, n=5). A higher rate of rural patients were managed with biologics (urban, n=56; rural, n=66) and combination therapy (urban, n=16; rural, n=27). The most common related IBD-related complications were IBD flares (urban, n=55; rural, n=60), intestinal strictures (urban, n=25; rural, n=34), intestinal obstructions (urban, n=10; rural, n=23) and rectal/genitourinary fistulas (urban, n=6; rural, n=21). Similar numbers of intra-abdominal surgery were seen between both groups with partial bowel resection (urban, n=13; rural, n=12) and right hemicolectomy (urban, n=10; rural, n=18) as the predominant surgery in urban and rural patients, respectively. Conclusion(s) This study demonstrated outpatient healthcare utilization when attending specialty gastroenterology appointments and outpatient endoscopies were numerically similar in rural and urban patients. IBD patient residing further from a tertiary care centre were numerically more likely to be managed with biologics and combination therapy. However the dataset is small and generalizations cannot be made. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below None Disclosure of Interest None Declared

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→