IBD-PODCAST Spain: A Close Look at Current Daily Clinical Practice in IBD Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) are inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) that contributes in part to irreversible bowel damage and long-term complications, reduced quality of life, invalidity, and economic burden. Suboptimal control of IBD is associated with higher healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), impaired quality of life (QoL), and reduced work productivity. AIMS: The IBD-PODCAST study aimed to assess the proportion of IBD patients with suboptimal control and its associated impact. METHODS: IBD-PODCAST is a cross-sectional, multicenter study that aimed to characterize the CD and UC population with optimal or suboptimal control according to the STRIDE-II criteria and patient- and physician-reported measures. Here we present the results of the Spanish cohort (n = 396). RESULTS: A total of 104/196 (53.1%) CD and 83/200 (41.5%) UC patients were found to have suboptimal disease control. Long-term treatment targets according to STRIDE-II were applied in 172 (87.8%) CD and 181 (90.5%) UC patients. 125 of 172 (72.7%) CD and 74 of 181 (40.9%) UC patients were currently treated with targeted immunomodulators. Patients with CD and UC and suboptimal disease control showed impaired QoL, higher HCRU and direct costs, and also loss of work productivity compared to those with optimal control. CONCLUSION: Despite a high rate of targeted immunomodulator therapy, a substantial proportion of IBD patients show suboptimal disease control according to the STRIDE II criteria. Those patients with suboptimal disease control exhibit impaired QoL, less work productivity, and higher HCRU, suggesting that there is considerable need for better treatment approaches in IBD.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.008 |
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".