Declining Trends of Reoperations and Disease Behaviour Progression in Crohn’s Disease over Different Therapeutic Eras—A Prospective, Population-Based Study from Western Hungary between 1977–2020, Data from the Veszprem Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Few population-based studies have investigated long-term surgery rates for Crohn's disease [CD]. Our aim was to analyse disease progression and surgery rates in a population-based cohort over different therapeutic eras, based on the time of diagnosis: cohort-A [1977-1995], cohort-B [1996-2008], and cohort-C [2009-2018]. METHODS: A total of 946 incident CD patients were analysed (male/female: 496/450; median age at diagnosis: 28 years [y]; interquartile range [IQR]: 22-40]). Patient inclusion lasted between 1977 and 2018. Immunomodulators have become widespread in Hungary since the mid-1990s and biologic therapies since 2008. Patients were followed prospectively, with both in-hospital and outpatient records reviewed regularly. RESULTS: The probability of disease behaviour progression from inflammatory [B1] to stenosing or penetrating phenotype [B2/B3] significantly decreased (27.1 ± 5.3%/21.5 ± 2.5%/11.3 ± 2.2% in cohorts A/B/C, respectively, after 5 years; 44.3 ± 5.9%/30.6 ± 2.8%/16.1 ± 2.9% after 10 years, respectively; [pLogRank <0.001]). The probability of first resective surgery between cohorts A/B/C were 33.3 ± 3.8%/26.5 ± 2.1%/28.1 ± 2.4%, respectively, after 5 years; 46.1 ± 4.1%/32.6 ± 2.2%/33.0 ± 2.7% after 10 years, respectively; and 59.1 ± 4.0%/41.4 ± 2.6% [cohorts A/B] after 20 years. There was a significant decrease in first resective surgery risk between cohorts A and B [plog rank = 0.002]; however, no further decrease between cohorts B and C [plog rank = 0.665]. The cumulative probability of re-resection in cohorts A/B/C was decreasing over time (17.3 ± 4.1%/12.6 ± 2.6%/4.7 ± 2.0%, respectively, after 5 years [plog rank = 0.001]). CONCLUSION: We report a continuous decline in reoperation rates and disease behaviour progression in CD over time, with the lowest values in the biologic era. In contrast, there was no further decrease in the probability of first major resective surgery after the immunosuppressive era.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".