MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4323350842 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwac036.099

A99 EFFICACY OF THE IN-HOSPITAL OBSERVATORY PERIOD FOR IBD PATIENTS WITH FLARE TREATED WITH ORAL CORTICOSTEROIDS

2023· article· en· W4323350842 on OpenAlexaffabout
J Buttar, S Pi, Kenneth G. Atkinson, B Chou, Alireza Habibi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsRoyal Columbian HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInflammatory bowel diseaseDiseaseRetrospective cohort studyCohortGuidelinePediatricsEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) is a chronic, debilitating collection of diseases with significant impairment to patient quality of life and hospital burden. Patients with acute flare of their disease are managed with IV corticosteroids and ultimately transitioned to an oral equivalent. Despite no formal guideline recommendation, some patients remain in hospital on oral corticosteroids, primarily for observation. Given that each day spent in hospital carries significant costs, examining this observatory period is warranted. The utility of the observatory period for patients recently switched to oral corticosteroids has not yet been studied and may be unnecessarily increasing hospital stays and costs to the Canadian medical system. Purpose - Analyse the efficacy of the in-hospital period for patients on oral corticosteroids after an acute IBD flare in preventing recurrence in the 14 and 28 days post discharge. - Assess the relationship between length of the in-hospital “observatory” period with future hospital burden. Method - This retrospective cohort study identified patients with known IBD who were admitted to Royal Columbian Hospital under the Gastroenterology service primarily for acute flare of their disease from June 1, 2020 to June 30th, 2022. Patients were identified through the clinic EMR (Plexia) and hospital information was accessed via the Fraser Health Health Records Department. This study acheived ethics approval by the Fraser Health Research Ethics Board (Event: 2022376). - Inclusion criteria are as follows: - Age > 18 years old - Prior diagnosis of IBD as per CAG guidelines - Acute IBD flare is primary reason for hospitalization - Hospital management includes IV corticosteroids and discharge medications include a tapering course of oral corticosteroid. - Exclusion criteria are as follows: - Patients found to be non-compliant on outpatient medication regimen (i.e tapering dose of PO prednisone). - Patients with a complicated course in management (concurrent illness that impacted hospital stay). Result(s) -20 patients were identified, with 60 total hospital admissions. -35 visits included an observatory period, with 6 less than 24hr (1 hospital re-presentation), and 29 greater than 24hr (3 hospital re-presentations). -25 visits did not have an observatory period. -The relative risk of patients without an observatory period returning to hospital within 14 and 28 days compared to those with an observatory period was 4.2 and 1.75, respectively. Conclusion(s) These preliminary results suggest an increased relative risk for those without an in-hospital observatory period for short term re-hospitalization. However, we hypothesize this will significantly change once we have broadened our date range and increased our total number of hospitalizations, which is planned prior to the poster presentation date. 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)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.191 · 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→