MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1583134507 · doi:10.1155/2007/862917

Delayed-Release Oral Mesalamine 4.8 g/day (800 mg tablets) Compared with 2.4 g/day (400 mg tablets) for the Treatment of Mildly to Moderately Active Ulcerative Colitis: The ASCEND I Trial

2007· article· en· W1583134507 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Stephen B. Hanauer, William J. Sandborn, Christian Dallaire, André Archambault, Bruce Yacyshyn, Chyon Yeh, Nancy Smith-Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité Laval
FundersProcter and Gamble
KeywordsMedicineUlcerative colitisAdverse effectInternal medicineGastroenterologyClinical endpointRandomized controlled trialSubgroup analysisClinical trialOral administrationIntention-to-treat analysisConfidence intervalDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Delayed-release oral mesalamine 2.4 g/day to 4.8 g/day has been shown to be effective in treating mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis (UC), but it is unknown whether an initial dose of 4.8 g/day is more effective than 2.4 g/day in patients with mildly to moderately active UC and in the subgroup with moderate disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A six-week, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial assessing the safety and clinical efficacy of a new dose (ASCEND I) of medication randomly assigned 301 adults with mildly to moderately active UC to delayed-release oral mesalamine 2.4 g/day (400 mg tablet [n=154]) or 4.8 g/day (800 mg tablet [n=147]). The primary efficacy end point was overall improvement (ie, treatment success), defined as complete remission or response to therapy from baseline to week 6. Primary safety end points were adverse events and laboratory evaluations. Data were also analyzed separately for the prespecified subgroup of patients with moderate UC at baseline. RESULTS: Treatment success was not statistically different between the treatment groups at week 6; 51% of the group (77 of 150) who received delayed-release oral mesalamine 2.4 g/day and 56% of the group (76 of 136) who received 4.8 g/day reached the efficacy end point (P=0.441). Among the moderate disease subgroup, however, the higher initial dose was more effective; 57% of patients (53 of 93) given delayed-release oral mesalamine 2.4 g/day and 72% of patients (55 of 76) given 4.8 g/day achieved treatment success (P=0.0384). Both regimens were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed-release oral mesalamine is an effective and well-tolerated initial therapy in patients with mildly to moderately active UC, and a 4.8 g/day dose may enhance treatment success rates in patients with moderate disease compared with mesalamine 2.4 g/day.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations164
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of GastroenterologySame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207