MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391873665 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwad061.264

A264 IDENTIFYING CLINICAL PREDICTORS FOR SUCCESS OF EXCLUSIVE ENTERAL NUTRITION INDUCTION THERAPY IN PEDIATRIC CROHN DISEASE

2024· article· en· W4391873665 on OpenAlexaffabout
R G Suarez Suarez, Daniel G. McClement, H Huynh, Anne M. Griffiths, Abdul Sattar Shaikh, Anthony Otley, Kevan Jacobson, Mary Sherlock, D Mack, Colette Deslandres, Jennifer deBruyn, Thomas D. Walters, Eytan Wine

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of OttawaMcMaster UniversityBC Children's HospitalDalhousie UniversityHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrohn's diseaseMedicineInduction therapyParenteral nutritionDiseaseIntensive care medicineMedical nutrition therapyEnteral administrationInternal medicineChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Current treatments for IBD focus on reducing inflammation, mostly through suppression of the immune system. Exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) is recognized as the first line therapy for mild-to-moderate luminal pediatric Crohn disease patients pCD. Although EEN is safe, as it does not suppress the immune system, it poses considerable challenges to patients, mostly due to palatability and monotony of the formula and treatment costs. Moreover, the efficacy of EEN varies greatly from patient to patient. Therefore, there is a need to distinguish between responders and non-responder patients. Aims Identify clinical features associated with efficacy of EEN induction therapy and apply machine learning to build a classifier to identify EEN non-responders. Methods The Canadian Children Inflammatory Bowel Disease Network prospectively enrolled and followed new onset pediatric IBD cases. Prospective data for 308 pCD with EEN as their first treatment for CD are available. Patients with weighted Pediatric CD Activity Indexes (wPCDAI) collected after at least 4 weeks on EEN were compiled into a dataset (n=108). For this analysis, treatment response was defined as a wPCDAI reduction of at least 12.5 points of a patient’s wPCDAI baseline score. The dataset includes 26 features for each of the 108 pCD patients at time of diagnosis. This included blood test results (Hgb, ESR, CRP, Alb, Htc, Plt), Paris Classifications, height, and weight Z-scores, as well as wPCDAI, SES-CD (simple endoscopic score, CD), PGA (physician global assessment), and Mayo scores. Odds ratios were calculated to determine whether any features were associated with response to EEN induction therapy. Then, the most relevant features were identified with regularization techniques and a machine learning classifier for predicting response to EEN was built. Results Results showed that the appropriate subset of features to include for optimal accuracy over model simplicity are n=4 (PUCAI, PGA, SES-CD scores, and hematocrit). Also, an increase in PGA score (e.g., moving from “mild disease” to “moderate disease”) was associated with an increase in the chance of EEN failure (OR 3.1, 95% CI [1.7,5.8], p=0.0001). The best classifier for predicting EEN response was a random forest consisting of 20 decision trees. The classifier achieved an area under the ROC curve of 0.75 ± 0.07 Conclusions Our results suggest that it is possible to produce a classifier capable of predicting EEN clinical remission with an accuracy over 60%. Higher PGA, PUCAI, and SES-CD scores show potential for predicting patients less likely to respond to EEN induction. This research has the potential to provide better quality of life for children who live with IBD. Funding Agencies CIHRIMAGINE SPOR Network , Women and Children's Health Research Institute

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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.303 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology→French-language works237,207→