Systematic review: the potential influence of mesalazine formulation on maintenance of remission in Crohn’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of pH 6-/pH 7-dependent and controlled-release mesalazines in maintaining medically and surgically induced Crohn's disease remission. METHODS: A systematic search identified 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The rate of symptomatic relapse (Crohn's disease activity index >150, or an increase in baseline by at least 60-100 points) was extracted from each randomized controlled trial. Pooled odds ratios (OR), the number needed to treat (NNT), and percentage therapeutic benefit (absolute risk reduction) were calculated. RESULTS: Treatment with pH 7-dependent mesalazine significantly reduced the risk of relapse in patients with either surgically [OR 0.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12-0.65; P = 0.0032] or medically induced remission (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.17-0.85; P = 0.0113). However, treatment with controlled-release mesalazine and pH 6-dependent mesalazine failed to show any significant advantage over placebo. The NNT to maintain surgically or medically induced remission was lowest for pH 7-dependent mesalazine (NNT = 4 and 5, respectively; NNT = 15 and 16 for controlled-release mesalazine and NNT = 11 and 23 for pH 6-dependent mesalazine). Therapeutic benefit was highest for pH 7-dependent mesalazine (surgical = 30.6%, medical = 22.8%). This compared with 6.9% (surgical) and 6.4% (medical) for controlled-release mesalazine, and 9.8% and 4.4%, respectively, for pH 6-dependent mesalazine. CONCLUSION: Further trials of pH 7-dependent mesalazine formulations are warranted in the maintenance of remission in 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 | 0.014 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".