MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P40 Are 2020 ECCO-ESPGHAN guidelines practiced in the care of children with crohn’s disease?

2023· article· en· W4366414680 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C. O'Toole, Maria Treadwell, Anthi Thangarajah

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePediatric gastroenterologyHepatologyGuidelineAuditNiceInfliximabInflammatory bowel diseaseInternal medicineCrohn's diseaseDiseasePediatricsRetrospective cohort studyIntensive care medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim Crohn’s disease (CD) is characterised by severe inflammation in the gastrointestinal tract. At diagnosis, risk stratification is recommended for children to predict a more severe disease progression, influencing management. The 2020 European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation and the Paediatric IBD Porto group of the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ECCO-ESPGHAN) guidelines recommend that low-risk children should be managed using a stepwise approach (starting with exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN)/corticosteroids).1High-risk children should be managed using a top-down approach starting with tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (anti-TNF agents) e.g. infliximab. This contrasts with 2014 guidance, where a universal stepwise approach was recommended.2The aim was to evaluate the level of compliance between clinical practice at a tertiary gastroenterology centre with recommendations made within the 2020 ECCO-ESPGHAN guidelines, specifically with regards to treating and monitoring children newly diagnosed with CD.1 Methods This was a single-centre retrospective audit of the management of children newly diagnosed with CD after the guideline publication.1We aimed to assess the adherence of management to the guidelines, and clinical implications of non-adherence. We used electronic hospital records to identify eligible patients, before conducting a case-note review of their clinical management in the year following their diagnosis. Results At diagnosis, we identified 17 low-risk, 2 medium-risk, and 16 high-risk children with CD. One high-risk child commenced anti-TNF therapy within two weeks of diagnosis. Eight (50%) high-risk children did not receive anti-TNF therapy whatsoever. Overall, we found that the vast majority (97%) of paediatric CD patients were initially managed using a step-up approach, irrespective of risk stratification. Using a non-validated composite score measuring disease activity at treatment initiation and follow-up, we found no difference between high-risk children treated with anti-TNF and those who were not. Of the low-risk children whose management was not escalated beyond EEN or corticosteroids, 5/11 could have been considered for escalation to anti-TNF therapy. All children were received standard regimens of infliximab. 7/12 (58%) children receiving infliximab had baseline serum infliximab concentrations below the recommended threshold (5 mg/L), however, 92% (n=11) of low concentrations were responded to appropriately. Conclusion The management of children with CD at this centre tended to be reactive, rather than proactive. This audit has identified key areas in which the clinical practice should be updated to reflect advances in management.1This includes facilitating standardisation of risk stratification at diagnosis (using the Paris Classification3), with children identified as being at high risk for a serious disease progression initially managed using anti-TNF agents. This study has been a retrospective case note review, as such, we relied upon the quality of documentation within the medical notes, limiting the level of detail that could be recorded for each patient. These findings are not indicative of an inherent mismanagement but instead reflective adherence to previous guidelines published in 2014.2Educational tools to improve recognition of high-risk features of children with CD, and updates to their recommended management, are recommended to improve future compliance with the current guidelines. References van Rheenen P, Aloi M, Assa A,et al. The medical management of paediatric crohn’s disease: an ECCO-ESPGHAN guideline update.Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis2020;15:171–194. Ruemmele F, Veres G, Kolho K,et al. Consensus guidelines of ECCO/ESPGHAN on the medical management of pediatric crohn’s disease.Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis2014;8:1179–207. Levine A, Griffiths A, Markowitz J,et al. Pediatric modification of the Montreal classification for inflammatory bowel disease: the Paris classification.Inflammatory Bowel Diseases2011;17:1314–1321.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in ChildhoodSame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207