emjreviews.com
New Model Predicts Crohn’s Disease Risk in Relatives
This model aims to identify healthy first‑degree relatives at higher risk of developing Crohn’s disease before symptoms start, which could enable earlier monitoring or preventive strategies. The score uses simple biomarkers (like faecal calprotectin) plus microbiome data rather than just genetics alone.
First‑degree relatives of people with Crohn’s disease, clinicians who manage IBD or family screening, and researchers studying biomarkers and the microbiome in disease prediction.
What To Know
New research developed the GEM-IRS, an integrative risk score that combines demographics, physiologic biomarkers (including faecal calprotectin and lactulose–mannitol ratio), and faecal microbiome data to predict future Crohn’s disease in healthy first‑degree relatives.
The model was trained and validated using cohorts from the GEM study (North America and Israel) and showed strong discrimination in the training set and moderate-to-strong performance in testing cohorts.
Fecal calprotectin and the lactulose–mannitol ratio were among the top contributors, along with specific gut microbes (for example, Holdemania, Gemella, and Ruminococcus torques). The study reports that individuals in the highest GEM-IRS quartile had a substantially higher cumulative incidence of Crohn’s disease than those in lower quartiles.
The article notes the need for further validation before clinical use and suggests the score might help identify asymptomatic high‑risk relatives for early monitoring or preventive interventions.
If you are a relative of someone with Crohn’s disease and are curious about personal risk, this research describes a new multi-component tool that could eventually be used in clinical risk assessment, but it is not yet a routine clinical test.
The GEM‑IRS is from a multicenter prospective cohort and performed well in the reported datasets, but the article and cited study emphasize further external validation is needed. This is prediction research, not a proven preventive intervention; results should be interpreted cautiously and discussed with clinicians.
