Current Controversies in Crohn's Disease: A Roundtable Discussion of the BRIDGe Group.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In March 2008, a roundtable discussion was convened by the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) specialist panel the BRIDGe (Building Resources and Research in IBD Globally) group, which consists of junior faculty gastroenterologists who have undergone advanced fellowship training at IBD referral centers in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. An agenda was formulated to discuss three current controversies in Crohn's disease management: the role of 5-aminosalicylates, the use of biologic combination therapy versus monotherapy, and the use of step-up therapy versus top-down therapy for Crohn's disease. The aim of the meeting was three-fold: to review the data pertaining to each topic; to collect opinions from the participants as to their analysis of the literature and their current practice; and, where possible, to formulate recommendations of current best practice given the available evidence. This manuscript summarizes the discussions on these three areas of controversy in the current management of Crohn's disease.
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 | 0.061 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.036 | 0.040 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".