MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

S1002 The Impact of Endoscopic Healing on Disease-Related Outcomes in Patients with Ulcerative Proctitis

2023· article· en· W4387733388 on OpenAlexaff
Esther Liu, Anjile An, Robert Battat, Randy Longman, Ellen Scherl, Dana J. Lukin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUlcerative colitisProctitisInternal medicineConfidence intervalOdds ratioUnivariate analysisRetrospective cohort studyExact testLogistic regressionGastroenterologyCohortColectomySurgeryDiseaseMultivariate analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The role of endoscopic healing (EH) in ulcerative proctitis (UP) is unclear. The long-term treatment goal in ulcerative colitis (UC) is achieving symptomatic resolution and EH, which has been associated with a reduced risk of colectomy. UP is a limited form of UC involving only the rectum and, unlike extensive/left-sided UC, has not been associated with elevated colorectal cancer risk. Therefore, achieving EH as compared to clinical remission in UP represents an uncertain therapeutic target. Methods: This study assessed the impact of EH on outcomes in UP patients. This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study including patients aged ≥ 18 with a UP diagnosis based on clinical/endoscopic criteria. Patients had ≥2 endoscopies, with the first showing active disease (Mayo endoscopy score [(MES) of 1, 2, or 3]) and ≥1 month to the follow-up scope. EH was defined as an MES of 0 or 1 at the second scope. Descriptive statistics were used for baseline characteristics. The relationship of EH to IBD-related outcomes was assessed using univariate analysis (Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test; Welch Two Sample t-test) and those independently associated with EH were identified using logistic regression analysis (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval). Results: Among 200 UP patients, 109 patients (54.5%) achieved EH. The median time from baseline to follow-up was 15 months (IQR: 6, 31). EH was associated with fewer IBD-related ED visits (EH: 8.3%, no EH: 21%) or hospitalizations (5.5% vs 18%) and fewer GI visits per follow-up year (mean: 1.47 [SD: 1.40], vs 2.96 [2.52]) after the follow-up scope. Patients with EH were less likely to have iron deficiency anemia (IDA; 23% vs 41%), iron infusion (10% vs 25%), C. difficile infection (0.9% vs 6.6%), or to initiate a new biologic after relapse (15% vs 33%). Patients with EH had a greater time to clinical relapse (650 days [730] vs 270 days [416]) (P=0.008). Patients with EH had reduced odds of an IBD-related ED visit (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.73) or hospitalization (0.26 [0.09, 0.67]), and 64% lower odds of biologic initiation after relapse (0.36 [0.13, 0.95]), adjusting for index MES score (Table 1). Conclusion: UP patients with EH had less IBD-related healthcare utilization, fewer IBD-related complications, and were less likely to escalate to biologics after relapse than patients without EH. Using a treatment target of EH may be desirable in UP given its potential utility in preventing disease-related complications and improving long-term outcomes. Table 1 - Characteristic Overall, N=2001 Mucosal healing, N=1091 No mucosal healing, N=911 P-value2 IBD complication 0.4 Multiple complications 60 (30%) 31 (28%) 29 (32%) No complications 67 (34%) 41 (38%) 26 (29%) Clinical relapse (n=167) 98 (59%) 47 (53%) 51 (65%) 0.14 Dysplasia 5 (2.5%) 3 (2.8%) 2 (2.2%) >0.99 CRC 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Colectomy 8 (4.0%) 2 (1.8%) 6 (6.6%) 0.14 IBD-related ED visit 28 (14%) 9 (8.3%) 19 (21%) 0.01 IBD-related hospitalization 22 (11%) 6 (5.5%) 16 (18%) 0.007 Recent ESR (mm/h)3 (n=101) 0.13 Mean (SD) 12 (11) 10 (11) 13 (11) Range 0, 52 0, 51 1, 52 Recent CRP (mg/dL)3 (n=94) 0.28 Mean (SD) 2.54 (17.94) 0.51 (0.52) 4.11 (23.86) Range 0.01, 174.30 0.01, 2.89 0.01, 174.39 Recent calprotectin (mcg/g)3 (n=38) 0.24 Mean (SD) 275 (408) 196 (369) 355 (440) Range 4, 1250 4, 1250 11, 1144 GI Visits per follow-up year < 0 .001 Mean (SD) 2.17 (2.13) 1.47 (1.40) 2.96 (2.52) Range 0.10, 10.84 0.10, 6.28 0.16, 10.84 IDA 62 (31%) 25 (23%) 37 (41%) 0.007 Iron infusion 34 (17%) 11 (10%) 23 (25%) 0.004 C. Difficile infection 7 (3.5%) 1 (0.9%) 6 (6.6%) 0.048 Extra-intestinal manifestations, after 2nd scope 84 (42%) 48 (44%) 36 (40%) 0.52 Extra-intestinal manifestations, after 2nd scope - type 0.49 Multiple sites 10 (5.0%) 5 (4.6%) 5 (5.5%) No sites 116 (58%) 61 (56%) 55 (60%) Arthritis/arthralgias 69 (34%) 39 (36%) 30 (33%) 0.68 Uveitis 5 (2.5%) 1 (0.9%) 4 (4.4%) 0.18 Rash 10 (5.0%) 7 (6.4%) 3 (3.3%) 0.35 PSC 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Oral ulcers 11 (5.5%) 6 (5.5) 5 (5.5) >0.99 Biologic initiation after relapse (n=98) 24 (24%) 7 (15%) 17 (33%) 0.034 Biologic initiation after relapse - type (n=24) 0.75 Anti-TNF 9 (38%) 4 (57%) 5 (29%) Clinical Trial 1 (4.2%) 0 (0%) 1 (5.9%) JAK inhibitor 1 (4.2%) 0 (0%) 1 (5.9%) Anti-IL-12/23 3 (12%) 0 (0%) 3 (18%) Anti-integrin 10 (42%) 3 (43%) 7 (41%) 1n (%) 2 Pearson's Chi-squared Test; Welch 2 Sample t-Test; Fisher's Exact Test 3 'Recent' was Defined as Within 3 Months Before or After the Time of the Second Scope CRC: colorectal cancer ED: emergency department IBD: inflammatory bowel disease GI: gastroenterology IDA: iron deficiency anemia EIMs: extra-intestinal manifestations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207