MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406704657 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjae190.0489

P0315 Incidence and risk factors for disease progression in patients with ulcerative proctitis: a retrospective cohort study

2025· article· en· W4406704657 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert‐Jan Pierik, Lauranne Derikx, J. H. Hoekstra, R. Post, R E A van Dongen, Annemarie C. de Vries, Alexander Bodelier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)Ulcerative colitisRetrospective cohort studyProctitisCohortInternal medicineRisk factorCohort studyDiseaseSurgeryGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Ulcerative proctitis (UP) is associated with disabling symptoms including diarrhea, hematochezia and bowel urgency1. Adequate therapy is crucial for symptom control and may reduce the risk of proximal disease extension. Although prior studies have explored risk factors for disease progression, they are limited by small sample sizes and have conflicting results2,3. Therefore, the aim of this study was (1) to assess the incidence and (2) to identify risk factors for disease progression in newly diagnosed UP patients. Methods All patients diagnosed with UP (inflammation ≤15 cm beyond the anal verge) between January 2000 and January 2024 in one large, non-academic hospital (Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands) were included in this retrospective cohort study. Data were collected from diagnosis to the end of follow-up. Disease progression was defined as UP (Montreal E1) endoscopically progressing to left-sided (E2) or pancolitis (E3). The Fine & Gray (F&G) regression model was used to identify risk factors for disease progression. 1-, 5- and 10-year progression rates were extracted, adjusted for the competing event of prolonged remission4. Results In total, 265 UP patients were included; 158 (60%) were female and median age at diagnosis was 40 years. 189 patients (71%) reached clinical remission with topical and/or oral 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASA) and/or topical steroids; 133 (50%) required only topical and/or oral 5-ASA. During a median follow-up of 5.4 years (IQR 2.0-10.8), disease progression occurred in 54 patients (20%), of whom 38 (14%) progressed to E2 and 16 (6.0%) to E3. Median time to progression was 45 months (IQR 18-104). The cumulative incidence of disease progression was 3.2% (95% CI 2.9-3.5%) at 1 year, 15.4% (95% CI 14.3-16.5%) at 5 years and 23.2% (95% CI 21.1-25.4%) at 10 years after diagnosis and would have been overestimated with a traditional survival analysis (Figure 1). F&G analyses demonstrated that age <18 years at diagnosis (HR 3.29, [95% CI 1.44–7.52], p=0.005) and steroid-free remission at 3 months (HR 0.46, [95% CI 0.23–0.91], p=0.025) were significant predictors for disease progression (Table 1). Conclusion In this large cohort of newly diagnosed UP patients, the 10-year cumulative incidence of disease progression was 23.2%. Although most patients responded well to conventional treatment, 29% required immunosuppressants and/or advanced therapies. Steroid-free remission at 3 months and age <18 at diagnosis were significant predictors for disease progression. Awareness of these predictors could help identify high-risk patients who may benefit from tailored monitoring strategies, as well as low-risk patients that may be suitable for referral back to primary care. References 1.Meucci G, Vecchi M, Astegiano M, et al. The natural history of ulcerative proctitis: a multicenter, retrospective study. Gruppo di Studio per le Malattie Infiammatorie Intestinali (GSMII). Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95(2):469-473. 2.Huguet JM, Ferrer-Barceló L, Suárez P, et al. Endoscopic progression of ulcerative proctitis to proximal disease. Can we identify predictors of progression?. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2018;53(10-11):1286-1290. 3.Walsh E, Chah YW, Chin SM, et al. Clinical Predictors and Natural History of Disease Extension in Patients with Ulcerative Proctitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2017;23(11):2035-2041. 4.Andersen PK, Geskus RB, de Witte T, Putter H. Competing risks in epidemiology: possibilities and pitfalls. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(3):861-870.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→