Classifying Crohn’s disease into colon-involving versus non-colon-involving groups is a better predictor of clinical outcomes than the Montreal classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:A suitable disease classification is essential for individualized therapy in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD). Although a potential mechanistic classification of colon-involving and non-colon-involving disease was suggested by recent genetic and microbiota studies, the clinical implication has seldom been investigated. We aimed to explore the association of this colonic-based classification with clinical outcomes in patients with CD compared with the Montreal classification.Methods:This was a retrospective study of CD patients from a tertiary referral center. Patients were categorized into colon-involving and non-colon-involving disease, and according to the Montreal classification. Clinico-demographic data, medications, and surgeries were compared between the two classifications. The primary outcome was the need for major abdominal surgery.Results:Of 934 patients, those with colonic involvement had an earlier median (interquartile range) age of onset [23.0 (17.0–30.0) versus 26.0 (19.0–35.0) years, p = 0.001], higher frequency of perianal lesions (31.2% versus 14.5%, p < 0.001) and extraintestinal manifestations (21.8% versus 14.5%, p = 0.010), but lower frequency of stricture (B2) (16.3% versus 24.0%, p = 0.005), than those with non-colon-involving disease. Colon-involving disease was a protective factor against major abdominal surgery [hazard ratio, 0.689; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.481–0.985; p = 0.041]. However, patients with colon-involving CD were more prone to steroids [odds ratio (OR), 1.793; 95% CI, 1.206–2.666; p = 0.004] and azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine (AZA/6-MP) treatment (OR, 1.732; 95% CI, 1.103–2.719; p = 0.017) than were patients with non-colon-involving disease. The Montreal classification was not predictive of surgery or steroids and AZA/6-MP treatment.Conclusion:This study supports the rationale for disease classification based on the involvement of colon. This new classification of CD is a better predictor of clinical outcomes than the Montreal classification.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".