Definitions, diagnosis, and management of postoperative recurrence in Crohn’s disease patients with permanent ileostomy—a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Over 10% of patients with Crohn's disease require permanent ileostomy. We aimed to summarize the existing data on diagnosis, definitions of recurrence, and management of Crohn's disease patients with permanent ileostomy. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception to February 6, 2024. Randomized controlled trials, cohort and cross-sectional studies, and case series of more than 5 patients reporting on postoperative recurrence or the need for surgery in patients with Crohn's disease and permanent ileostomy were included. Search results were independently screened, and full text of all titles meeting eligibility criteria was obtained. Outcomes of interest included diagnostic techniques, recurrence definitions, and management approaches. We estimated pooled rates (with 95% confidence interval [CI]) of recurrence. RESULTS: Thirty cohort studies including 2055 Crohn's patients with permanent ileostomy were included (53% female, median age at the time of ileostomy creation 32 years, the most common reason for ileostomy was refractory disease). The postoperative recurrence rate was 27% (95% CI, 21.3-33.3, 26 studies, 451/1805 patients). Modalities for diagnosis of Crohn's disease recurrence were symptoms (15 studies), endoscopy (4 studies), histology from endoscopic biopsies (2 studies), imaging (5 studies), and surgery (22 studies). The reported definitions of recurrence for each modality were heterogeneous. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of standardized monitoring tools and criteria for diagnosing recurrence in patients with Crohn's disease and permanent ileostomy. The results of this systematic review will form the basis of a global expert recommendation exercise focused on developing management standards and trial endpoints for this condition.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".