Obesity in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD): Recognizing a Critical Modifier In Modern Disease Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The notion of obesity as a disease remains controversial. A recent consensus from the Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology Commission reframes obesity by distinguishing between “preclinical obesity,” defined as a state of excess adiposity with preserved organ function, and “clinical obesity,” defined as a chronic, systemic illness caused by excess adiposity and characterized by measurable dysfunction in organ systems or limitations in daily living activities. This distinction provides a medically meaningful basis to identify when obesity constitutes a disease in its own right. Historically, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) was associated with undernutrition and weight loss, a reflection of both disease activity and malabsorption. However, with shifting demographics, improved therapeutic options, and global lifestyle changes, obesity has emerged as an increasingly relevant coexisting condition in patients with IBD. While the current prevalence of overweight and obesity among Canadians with IBD remains unknown, population-level data from Statistics Canada show that 35.8% of adults in urban centers are classified as overweight, and 29.0% as obese. This epidemiologic shift has important clinical ramifications. Obesity contributes to systemic inflammation and is associated with increased healthcare utilization and reduced quality of life (QoL), which are burdens already faced by patients with IBD. The intersection of these two chronic conditions introduces complex challenges for disease management, health outcomes, and healthcare systems. This review explores the clinical impact of obesity in patients with IBD, including its influence on disease phenotype, treatment response, surgical outcomes, and QoL.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".