MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407284997 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwae059.054

A54 INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE IN INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS: A SCOPING REVIEW

2025· review· en· W4407284997 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMicroscopic Colitis
Canadian institutionsAssembly of First NationsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflammatory bowel diseaseIndigenousDiseaseBiologyMedicineEcologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Globally, Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) rates have surged; however, Indigenous/Native/Aboriginal populations (i.e., the original inhabitants of a geographical region) are underrepresented in research and often face unique challenges in accessing healthcare due to socioeconomic barriers stemming from historic inequities. Aims This scoping review aimed to synthesize available literature on IBD in Indigenous populations globally, identify research gaps, and propose recommendations to improve research inclusivity. Methods A literature search was conducted across eight online databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, i-portal, Native Health Database, and ASTIS. We included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method research in this review, as well as commentaries, editorials, and abstracts published between 1960 and 2023. Eligibility criteria included publications in English focused on IBD Indigenous populations. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. The included publications were summarized and appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Results Eighteen publications were included in the review, with most originating from Canada (n=7), New Zealand (n=5), and Australia (n=4). There was one study from Chile and another from the United States. Results showed a lower prevalence of IBD in Indigenous populations compared to the general population, but some recent studies reported an increasing prevalence of IBD among Indigenous populations from different countries. These changes are hypothesized to result from urbanization, changes in diet, sanitation, or other environmental changes. Also, a study from Canada showed that Indigenous peoples face inequities in accessing IBD care. Apart from 3 papers from Canada, 15 of the 18 publications had no evidence of working with Indigenous community members during the research process. Conclusions This scoping review highlights gaps in the literature about IBD in Indigenous populations. While the prevalence of IBD among Indigenous peoples is low, evidence demonstrates that rates are rising. Further research is required to continue studying the rising rates of IBD in Indigenous populations, alongside the genetic and environmental factors contributing to these trends. A focus on patient-centered research should also be emphasized. Indigenous peoples must be included as research partners and Indigenous research protocols must be followed to address health inequities and improve the health and well-being of Indigenous peoples living with IBD. Funding Agencies None

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.305 · 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