MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401581898 · doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000003031

US National Estimates of Contemporary Mortality Rates in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis Undergoing Colectomy

2024· article· en· W4401581898 on OpenAlexaff
Newaz Shubidito Ahmed, S Krawchuk, Katherine A Buhler, Virginia Solitano, Vipul Jairath, Abdel Aziz Shaheen, Cynthia H. Seow, Kerri L. Novak, R Ingram, Cathy Lu, Paulo Gustavo Kotze, Gilaad G. Kaplan, Remo Panaccione, Christopher Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColectomyUlcerative colitisComorbidityMortality rateLaparotomySurgeryInternal medicineGeneral surgeryIntensive care medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Despite a growing armamentarium of medical therapies for ulcerative colitis, colectomy remains an important therapeutic option. To better inform shared decision-making about surgery, we estimated the contemporary risk of mortality after colectomy. METHODS: Mortality rates were estimated using the National Inpatient Sample (2016-2020). Factors associated with postcolectomy death were evaluated in multivariable regression. RESULTS: Postcolectomy mortality occurred in 1.2% (95% CI: 0.8%, 1.9%) of hospitalizations. Comorbidity burden, emergent laparotomy, and delays to surgery >5 days after admission were associated with mortality. DISCUSSION: Colectomy may be associated with mortality; however, this risk is heterogeneous based on patient- and procedural-related factors.

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)0.003
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→