Three‐stage versus modified two‐stage surgery for ulcerative colitis: a patient‐centred treatment trade‐off study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: There is ongoing debate about whether ileal pouch-anal anastomosis needs temporary diversion at the time of construction. Stomas may reduce risk for anastomotic leak (AL) but are also associated with complications, emergency department visits and readmissions. This treatment trade-off study aims to measure patients' preferences by assessing the absolute risk of AL and pouch failure (PF) they are willing to accept to avoid a diverting ileostomy. METHODS: Fifty-two patients with ulcerative colitis, with or without previous pouch surgery, from Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, participated in this study. Standardized interviews were conducted using the treatment trade-off threshold technique. An online anonymous survey was used to collect patient demographics. We measured the absolute increased risk in AL and PF that patients would accept to undergo modified two-stage surgery as opposed to traditional three-stage surgery. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients (mean age 38.7 ± 15.3) with previous surgery and 20 patients (mean age 39.5 ± 11.9) with no previous surgery participated. Patients were willing to accept an absolute increased leak rate of 5% (interquartile range 4.5%-15%) to avoid a diverting ileostomy. Similarly, patients were willing to accept an absolute increased PF rate of 5% (interquartile range 2.5%-10%). Younger patients, aged 21-29, had lower tolerance for PF, accepting an absolute increase of only 2% versus 5% for patients older than 30 (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Patients were willing to accept a 5% increased AL rate or PF rate to avoid a temporary diverting ileostomy. This should be taken into consideration when deciding between modified two- and three-stage pouch procedures.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".