Prognostic Value of the Modified Rutgeerts Score for Long-Term Outcomes After Primary Ileocecal Resection in Crohn's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The prognostic value of the modified Rutgeerts score (mRS) in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) needs to be further elucidated. This study assessed the prognostic value of the mRS for long-term outcomes after primary ileocecal resection in patients with CD. METHODS: Patients with CD after primary ileocecal resection with an available mRS at first postoperative ileocolonoscopy (index mRS) were retrospectively included. The primary outcome was surgical recurrence. Secondary outcomes were clinical recurrence and progression to severe endoscopic recurrence (≥i3). Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the association between index mRS and outcomes. RESULTS: Six hundred fifty-two patients were included (mean follow-up: 6.4 years, SD: 4.6). Surgical recurrence rates were 7.7%, 5.3%, 12.9%, 19.1%, 28.8%, 47.8% for index mRS i0, i1, i2a, i2b, i3, and i4, respectively. Clinical recurrence occurred in 42.2% (i0), 53.7% (i1), 58.5% (i2a), 80.2% (i2b), 79.4% (i3), and 95.3% (i4) of patients. Progression to severe endoscopic recurrence occurred in 21.1% (i0), 33.9% (i1), 26.8% (i2a), and 33.3% (i2b) of patients. An index mRS of i2b (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 3.0; 1.5-5.6), i3 (aHR 4.0; 2.0-7.9) and i4 (aHR 8.0; 4.0-16.0) were associated with surgical recurrence. An index mRS of i1 (aHR 1.7; 1.2-2.4), i2a (aHR 1.7; 1.2-2.4), i2b (aHR 4.4; 3.2-6.0), i3 (aHR 3.6; 2.5-5.2), and i4 (aHR 7.3; 4.8-10.9) were associated with clinical recurrence. An index mRS of i1 (aHR 2.0; 1.1-3.7) or i2b (aHR 2.5; 1.4-4.6) was associated with progression to severe endoscopic recurrence. DISCUSSION: The increasing mRS corresponds closely with the risk of surgical and clinical recurrence. An index mRS ≥ i2b is associated with surgical recurrence, an index mRS ≥ i1 is associated with clinical recurrence, and i1 or i2b with progression to severe endoscopic recurrence. These results support tight monitoring of disease activity and treatment optimization in patients with ileal lesions and a more conservative management in patients with anastomotic lesions.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".