ASSESSMENT OF RISK FACTORS FOR SURGERY TREATMENT OF CROHN’S DISEASE: A HOSPITAL COHORT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: New therapies have revolutionized the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD), but in some countries, the surgery rate has not changed, the frequency of emergency surgery is underestimated, and surgical risk is poorly studied. AIMS: The aim of this study was to identify risk factors and clinical indications for primary surgery in CD patients at the tertiary hospital. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort of a prospectively collected database of 107 patients with CD from 2015 to 2021. The main outcomes were the incidence of surgery treatment, types of procedures performed, surgical recurrence, surgery free time, and risk factors for surgery. RESULTS: Surgical intervention was performed in 54.2% of the patients, and most of the procedures were emergency surgeries (68.9%). The elective procedures (31.1%) were performed over 11 years after diagnosis. The main indications for surgery were ileal stricture (34.5%) and anorectal fistulas (20.7%). The most frequent procedure was enterectomy (24.1%). Recurrence surgery was most common in emergency procedures (OR 2.1; 95%CI 1.6-6.6). Montreal phenotype L1 stricture behavior (RR 1.3; 95%CI 1.0-1.8, p=0.04) and perianal disease (RR 1.43; 95%CI 1.2-1.7) increased the risk of emergency surgeries. The multiple linear regression showed age at diagnosis as a risk factor for surgery (p=0.004). The study of surgery free time showed no difference in the Kaplan-Meier curve for Montreal classification (p=0.73). CONCLUSIONS: The risk factors for operative intervention were strictures in ileal and jejunal diseases, age at diagnosis, perianal disease, and emergency indications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".