Time Trends of Environmental and Socioeconomic Risk Factors in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease over 40 Years: A Population-Based Inception Cohort 1977–2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Data from population-based studies investigating trends in environmental factors associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is lacking. We aimed to assess long-term time trends of environmental and socioeconomic factors in IBD patients from a well-defined population-based cohort from Veszprem, Hungary. Methods: Patients were included between 1 January 1977, and 31 December 2020. Trends of environmental and socioeconomic factors were evaluated in three periods based on the decade of diagnosis, representing different therapeutic eras: cohort-A,1977–1995; cohort-B,1996–2008 (immunomodulator era); and cohort-C, 2009–2020 (biological era). Results: A total of 2240 incident patients with IBD were included (ulcerative colitis (UC) 61.2%, male 51.2%, median age at diagnosis: 35 years (IQR 29–49)). Rates of active smoking significantly decreased over time in Crohn’s disease (CD): 60.2%, 49.9%, and 38.6% in cohorts A/B/C (p < 0.001). In UC, the rates were low and stable: 15.4%, 15.4%, and 14.5% in cohorts A/B/C (p = 0.981). Oral contraceptive use was more common in CD compared to UC (25.0% vs. 11.6%, p < 0.001). In UC, prevalence of appendectomy before diagnosis decreased over time: 6.4%, 5.5%, and 2.3% in cohorts A/B/C (p = 0.013). No significant changes were found in the socio-geographic characteristics of the IBD population (urban living: UC, 59.8%/64.8%/ 62.5% (p = 0.309) and CD, 62.5%/ 62.0%/ 59.0% (p = 0.636), in cohorts A/B/C). A greater percentage of patients had completed secondary school as the highest education level in later cohorts in both UC (42.9%/50.2%/51.6%, p < 0.001) and CD (49.2%/51.7%/59.5%, p = 0.002). A higher percentage of skilled workers (34.4%/36.2%/38.9%, p = 0.027) was found in UC, but not in CD (p = 0.454). Conclusion: The association between trends of known environmental factors and IBD is complex. Smoking has become less prevalent in CD, but no other major changes occurred in socioeconomic factors over the last four decades that could explain the sharp increase in IBD incidence.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".