Bidirectional association between asthma and inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This meta-analysis aims to systematically review and summarize epidemiological evidence regarding the bidirectional association between asthma and IBD. We performed a meta-analysis using data from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, with searches conducted up to September 3, 2024. Observational studies examining the association between asthma and IBD were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). Pooled OR with 95% CI were calculated using a random-effects model. Our analysis included 20 studies with 14,976,781 participants. The risk of IBD among asthma patients was found to be elevated (OR = 1.33, 95% CI 1.19–1.48). Conversely, IBD patients had a higher risk of developing asthma (OR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.12–1.55). Subgroup analysis revealed that asthma was associated with an increased risk of Crohn’s disease (CD) (OR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.12–1.55), but not ulcerative colitis (UC) (P = 0.099). The risk of asthma was higher in patients with CD (OR = 1.25, 95% CI 1.01–1.54) and UC (OR = 1.49, 95% CI 1.20–1.53). This meta-analysis identifies a bidirectional association between asthma and IBD, highlighting a significantly increased risk for both conditions. Clinicians should be aware of this relationship to better manage and monitor patients with either disease. Trial registration Registration number CRD42024586171
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 | 0.018 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".