Systematic review: Patient‐related, microbial, surgical, and histopathological risk factors for endoscopic post‐operative recurrence in patients with Crohn's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Risk stratification for endoscopic post-operative recurrence (ePOR) in Crohn's disease (CD) is required to identify patients who would benefit most from initiation of prophylactic medication and intensive monitoring of recurrence. AIMS: To assess the current evidence on patient-related, microbial, surgical and histopathological risk factors for ePOR in patients with CD after ileocolic (re-)resection. METHODS: Multiple online databases (Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library) were searched up to March 2024. Studies with reported associations of patient-related, microbial, surgical and/or histopathological factors for ePOR (i.e., Rutgeerts' score ≥i2 or modified Rutgeerts' score ≥i2a) were included. The risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational cohort studies and case-control studies. RESULTS: In total, 47 studies were included (four RCTs, 29 cohort studies, 12 case-control studies, one cross-sectional study and one individual participant data meta-analysis) including 6006 patients (median sample size 87 patients [interquartile range 46-170]). Risk of bias assessment revealed a poor quality in 41% of the studies. An association was reported in multiple studies of ePOR with active smoking at and post-surgery, male sex and prior bowel resection. A heterogeneous association with ePOR was reported for other risk factors included in the current guidelines (penetrating disease, perianal disease, younger age, extensive small bowel disease and presence of granulomas in the resection specimen or myenteric plexitis in the resection margin), and other patient-related, microbial, surgical and histopathological factors. CONCLUSION: Risk factors for ePOR in international guidelines are not consistently reported as risk factors in current literature except for active smoking and prior bowel resection. To develop evidence-based, personalised strategies, large prospective studies are warranted to identify risk factors for ePOR. Validation studies of promising (bio)markers are also required.
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 | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".