FISTULIZING PERIANAL CROHN’S DISEASE: IS THE PATIENT’S SEX A BURDEN? A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fistulizing perianal Crohn's disease poses a treatment challenge, and researchers postulate that this phenotype in young male patients could have a worst outcome. OBJECTIVE: Thus, the aim of this study was to assess whether sex influences the response to treatment for these patients. METHODS: This systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42022319629) was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol. We selected articles published in English, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian between 2010 and 2020 in the PubMed and Science Direct databases. According to the PICO acronym, prospective studies in patients older than 18 years with the objective of treating fistulizing perianal Crohn's disease were selected. Studies in pediatric populations, retrospective, without treatment objectives, and that included only rectovaginal fistulas or a single sex were excluded. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: Of the 1887 articles found, 33 were included. Most studies used anti-TNF drugs as treatment (n=11). Ten studies had subgroup analyses; of them, the two studies reporting sex differences used infliximab and adalimumab as treatment and showed that women had a longer fistula closure time than men. CONCLUSION: This systematic review showed that few data corroborate the difference between sexes in the treatment of fistulizing perianal Crohn's disease, possibly having a greater relationship with the phenotype. However, considering the lack of results, further studies with this objective and with standardization of fistulas and response assessment methods are needed.
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 | 0.014 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".