Outcomes and Endpoints of Postoperative Recurrence in Crohn’s Disease: Systematic Review and Consensus Conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outcomes after ileocolonic resection in Crohn's disease [CD] are heterogeneous, and a clear definition of postoperative recurrence remains to be determined. Our Endpoints Working Group of the International Organization for the study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease [IOIBD] aimed to standardise postoperative outcomes, to discuss which endpoints should be used for postoperative clinical trials, and to define those which could be used in trials or registries. METHODS: Based on a systematic review of the literature, recommendations and statements were drafted and sent to all IOIBD members for a first round of voting. Recommendations and statements were revised based on the voters' comments during a consensus hybrid conference open to all IOIBD members. If no agreement was reached after two rounds of voting, the statement was excluded. RESULTS: In the systematic review, 3071 manuscripts were screened of which 434 were included. Sixteen recommendations were identified, of which 11 were endorsed. Recommendations and statements include that endoscopy remains the gold standard and should be used as a short-term primary endpoint in both observational cohorts and randomised controlled trials. Clinical symptoms classically used in clinical trials for luminal CD are not reliable in this specific situation. For that reason, longer-term endpoints should be based on the evidence of macroscopic inflammation assessed by imaging techniques, endoscopy, or as reflected by the presence of complications. CONCLUSIONS: Agencies recommend the use of clinical evaluations, as in the case of luminal CD, and do not recognise primary endpoints based solely on endoscopy. This consensus has led to agreement on the need to define postoperative endoscopy-based and/or imaging-based endpoints.
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 | 0.136 | 0.265 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".