ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2025
Identification of Cohorts with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Amidst Fragmented Clinical Databases via Machine Learning.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robust comparative evaluation of 15 natural language processing algorithms to positively identify patients with inflammatory bowel disease from secondary care records.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Methodological Considerations for Machine Learning-Based Identification of IBD Cohorts.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeInflammatory bowel disease (IBD) cohort identification typically relies primarily on read/billing codes, which may miss some patients. However, a complete picture cannot typically be obtained due to database fragmentation/missingness. This study used novel cohort retrieval methods to identify the total IBD cohort from a large university teaching hospital with a specialist intestinal failure unit.
methodsBetween 2007 and 2023, 11 clinical databases (ICD10 codes, OPCS4 codes, clinician-entry IBD registry, IBD patient portal, prescriptions, biochemistry, flare line calls, clinic appointments, endoscopy, histopathology, and clinic letters) were identified as having the potential to help identify local patients with IBD. The 11 databases were statistically compared, and a penalized logistic regression (LR) classifier was robustly trained and validated.
resultsThe gold-standard validation cohort comprised 2800 patients: 2092(75%) with IBD and 708(25%) without. All the databases contained unique patients that were not covered by the Casemix ICD-10 database. The penalizsed LR model (AUROC:0.85-Validation) confidently identified 8,159 patients with IBD (threshold: 0.496). By combining the likely true-positive predictions from the LR model with likely true-positive IBD clinic letters, a final estimate of 13,048 patients with IBD was obtained. ICD-10 codes combined with medication data identified only 8,048 patients, suggesting that present recapture methods missed 38.3% of the local cohort.
conclusionDiagnostic billing codes and medication data alone cannot accurately identify complete cohorts of individuals with IBD in secondary care. A multimodal cross-database model can partially compensate for this deficit. However, to improve this situation in the future, more robust natural language processing (NLP)-based identification mechanisms will be required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.