Australian inflammatory bowel disease consensus statements for preconception, pregnancy and breast feeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Because pregnancy outcomes tend to be worse in women with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) than in those without, we aimed to update consensus statements that guide the clinical management of pregnancy in patients with IBD. DESIGN: A multidisciplinary working group was established to formulate these consensus statements. A modified RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used, consisting of a literature review, online voting, discussion meeting and a second round of voting. The overall agreement among the delegates and appropriateness of the statement are reported. RESULTS: Agreement was reached for 38/39 statements which provide guidance on management of pregnancy in patients with IBD. Most medications can and should be continued throughout pregnancy, except for methotrexate, allopurinol and new small molecules, such as tofacitinib. Due to limited data, no conclusion was reached on the use of tioguanine during pregnancy. Achieving and maintaining IBD remission before conception and throughout pregnancy is crucial to optimise maternofetal outcomes. This requires a multidisciplinary approach to engage patients, allay anxieties and maximise adherence tomedication. Intestinal ultrasound can be used for disease monitoring during pregnancy, and flexible sigmoidoscopy or MRI where clinically necessary. CONCLUSION: These consensus statements provide up-to-date, comprehensive recommendations for the management of pregnancy in patients with IBD. This will enable a high standard of care for patients with IBD across all clinical settings.
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 | 0.105 | 0.154 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".