MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407285121 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwae059.094

A94 ASSOCIATION OF BOWEL URGENCY WITH OTHER DISEASE ACTIVITY MEASURES IN ULCERATIVE COLITIS

2025· article· en· W4407285121 on OpenAlexaffabout
Peter J. Gill, Holmes Finch, Lance L. Stein, Christopher Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUlcerative colitisAssociation (psychology)Inflammatory bowel diseaseMedicineGastroenterologyInternal medicineDiseasePsychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The presence of bowel urgency and fecal incontinence negatively impacts quality of life in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Aims We aimed to characterize the assessment of urgency and incontinence in routine clinical care. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of prevalent cases of UC evaluated in the University of Calgary IBD Clinic from December 2022 to May 2023, with at least 12 months of follow-up to May 2024. Data on the evaluation of bowel urgency was collected, as were other patient-, disease-, and outcome-related parameters. We aimed to evaluate (1) the proportion of clinic visits where bowel urgency was assessed and documented; (2) the methods for evaluating urgency; (3) the correlation between bowel urgency and other patient-reported outcome measures (including stool frequency and rectal bleeding); and (4) the correlation between bowel urgency and endoscopic appearance. Results A total of 274 patients with UC who attended 435 clinic visits were included in this analysis (126 [46.0%] male, mean age at diagnosis 33.2 years [SD 15.5], 104 [40.3%] pancolitis. At the index visit, bowel urgency was evaluated in 160/274 visits (58.4%) and was present in 24.4% (39/160). Most cases were evaluated using the presence/absence of bowel urgency, rather than using a Likert or ordinal scale. In 416 follow-up visits, bowel urgency was assessed in 231 (55.5%) of visits and was present in 75 cases (33.0%). There were moderate-to-strong correlations between bowel urgency and stool frequency (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.54, p<0.001) and rectal bleeding (0.53, p<0.001), but only weak correlation with endoscopic evaluation (Spearman 0.20, p=0.08). Among 136 patients with normal or near normal stool frequency, 16.2% (22/136) had persistent bowel urgency. Among 59 patients with normal or near normal endoscopy, 20.3% (12/59) had persistent bowel urgency. Conclusions Bowel urgency remains inconsistently evaluated in clinical care, representing an important area for quality improvement. Although bowel urgency was significantly associated with other patient-reported outcome measures, approximately 1 in 5 patients will have persistent bowel urgency despite minimal endoscopic activity. 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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→