MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

S1117 A Multi-Center Study of Clinical Outcomes in Crohn’s Disease Patients With Acute Appendicitis Treated Operatively vs Non-Operatively

2023· article· en· W4387733274 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Scott Manski, Morgan Freeman, Alyssa M. Bren, Levi Teigen, Abdelkader Chaar, Badr Al‐Bawardy, Eugenia Shmidt, Raina Shivashankar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAppendicitis Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAppendicitisMedical recordCrohn's diseaseRetrospective cohort studyCohortDiseaseAcute appendicitisMedical historyInflammatory bowel diseaseInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: There are limited data on the efficacy of medical vs surgical therapy in Crohn’s disease (CD) patients presenting with acute appendicitis. We have previously presented data in a small cohort of CD patients showing that medical therapy for acute appendicitis may be a safe and effective option compared to surgical therapy (Am J Gastro. 117(10S):e761. 2022). In this study, we sought to assess the outcomes of CD patients treated with non-operative vs operative strategies for acute appendicitis in a larger multi-center cohort. Methods: A multi-center retrospective review of electronic health records between 1/1/2015 and 1/31/2023 was conducted. Adult patients with a documented history of CD presenting with acute appendicitis were included. Patient demographics and inflammatory bowel disease history were collected. Clinical assessments, radiographic data, and medical and/or surgical interventions at the time of presentation for appendicitis were documented. T-tests were used to compare continuous variables and Chi-Square or Fisher’s exact tests were used to compare categorical variables. Results: A total of 52 patients with CD and acute appendicitis were identified (19 were treated medically with antibiotics and 33 underwent surgery). Fifty-two percent of patients were male. Demographic data including sex, age at CD diagnosis, and CD location were similar between surgical and medical management groups (Table 1). Crohn’s disease activity, derived from a physician global assessment (PGA) score, was similar in both groups. At the time of admission, 9 patients (47%) in the medical management group were in a CD flare vs. 3 patients (9%) in the surgical group (P< 0.01). Of those medically managed, 8 patients (44%) eventually required an appendectomy within 1 year. There were no differences in length of hospital stay, complication rate up to 6 months post-admission, time to subsequent CD-related surgery, and time to CD recurrence/flare between the two groups. Conclusion: In this multi-center cohort of CD patients presenting with acute appendicitis, we found similar outcomes between those who were managed surgically vs medically. CD patients in a flare at the time of presentation were more likely to receive medical therapy. Therefore, antibiotic therapy may be an effective and safe management strategy in the treatment of CD patients with acute appendicitis. Medical management may avoid surgery in over half of these patients. Table 1. - Clinical Characteristics of Crohn's Disease Patients Presenting with Acute Appendicitis All Antibiotics (n=19) Surgery (n=33) P-value Sex, n (%) >0.05 F 25 9 (36%) 16 (64%) M 27 10 (37%) 17 (63%) Montreal Classification Age, n (%) >0.05* A1 5 3 (17%) 2 (7%) A2 23 6 (33%) 17 (59%) A3 19 9 (50%) 10 (34%) Montreal Classification Age, n (%) >0.05* L1 15 4 (21%) 11 (36%) L2 15 6 (32%) 9 (29%) L3 20 9 (47%) 11 (35%) PGA, n (%) >0.05* 0 25 8 (42%) 17 (53%) 1 5 0 5 (16%) 2 11 6 (32%) 5 (16%) 3 10 5 (26%) 5 (16%) Presence of flare during admission, n (%) < 0.01* Yes 13 9 (47%) 3 (9%) No 39 10 (53%) 30 (91%) Age at appendicitis episode, years 43 (17-73) 41 (19-90) >0.05 LOS, days 3.9 (0-14) 2.8 (0-17) >0.05 [Chi-Square or *Fisher's Exact Test PGA: Physician Global Assessment; LOS: Length of Stay].

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicAppendicitis Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207