MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S1314 The Impact of Disease Status After Biologic Induction Therapy on Long-Term Outcomes in Persons With Crohn’s Disease

2024· article· en· W4403724886 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gurmun Brar, Parul Tandon, Muzzafar Haque, Myrlene Sanon, Dominik Naessens, Eneda Pone, Laura E. Targownik

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of ReginaUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCrohn's diseaseDiseaseTerm (time)Intensive care medicineInduction therapyInternal medicineChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Historically, less than 20% of patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) achieve clinical remission after induction with biologic therapy. It is unknown how response to biologic induction influences disease behavior, treatment patterns, and healthcare utilization for patients maintained on biologic therapy long-term. We aimed to elucidate the impact of achieving clinical remission after biologic induction on long-term disease outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study including all patients with CD who completed biologic induction at Mount Sinai Hospital, Canada before June 30, 2021. Patients were stratified by response to biologic induction as per physician global assessment as remitters (clinical remission) and non-remitters (partial or no-response). We extracted data on disease activity (symptoms, biochemistry, endoscopy, imaging), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-related complications, IBD-related healthcare utilization (emergency department, hospitalization, surgery), and changes to pharmacotherapy until end of follow-up. Endoscopic remission was defined as SES-CD score less than 4 or based on the endoscopist's impression. Results: Of the 160 patients included, 35.6%, 25.0%, and 28.9% had stricturing, penetrating, and perianal disease respectively, with 34.3% having a history of CD surgery. Index biologic included infliximab (24.4%), adalimumab (32.5%), vedolizumab (25.0%), and ustekinumab (11.9%). After biologic induction, 34.4% and 65.6% of patients were stratified as remitters and non-remitters respectively. Remitters were less likely to have upper gastrointestinal CD (3.6% vs 10.5%), penetrating complications (18.2% vs 28.6%), and perianal disease (16.4% vs 35.2%) at biologic start. Compared to non-remitters, remitters were more likely to be in clinical remission throughout follow-up (47.2% vs 27.6%, P =0.01) and in clinical remission at last follow-up (87.2% vs 69.5%, P =0.04). Remitters were less likely to undergo CD-related bowel resection (3.6% vs 13.3%, P =0.05) or discontinue index biologic (7.2% vs 16.1%, P =0.06). There appeared to be no significant difference in IBD hospitalizations (10.9% vs 19.0%, P =0.14) or ED visits (7.2% vs 13.3%, P =0.26). There was no difference in rates of ulcer persistence (51.6% vs 53.5%, P =0.63) or achievement of endoscopic remission (58.9% vs 48.7%, P =0.76) between remitters and non-remitters. Conclusion: Achieving clinical remission after biologic induction is associated with sustained clinical remission and reduced likelihood of subsequent CD-related bowel resection.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→