Medical management of mild to moderate Crohn’s disease: evidence‐based treatment algorithms for induction and maintenance of remission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with Crohn's disease alternate between periods of active, symptomatic disease and periods of remission. The treatment goal for Crohn's disease is to induce and then maintain remission of symptoms. AIM: To review evidence from randomized, controlled, clinical trials on medical therapies for inducing and maintaining remission in patients with mild-to-moderate Crohn's disease, and to suggest the best evidence-based approaches for induction and maintenance therapies. METHODS: PubMed search using the following terms: sulfasalazine or salicylazosulfapyridine or aminosalicylate or aminosalicylic acid or mesalamine or mesalazine or corticosteroid or prednisone or prednisolone or methylprednisolone or budesonide or antibiotic or metronidazole or ciprofloxacin or immunosuppressive or azathioprine or mercaptopurine or thiopurine or methotrexate and Crohn's disease. RESULTS: Randomized, controlled trials demonstrated that sulfasalazine, budesonide, and conventional corticosteroids are effective for inducing remission of mild-to-moderate Crohn's disease when administered for a period of 8-16 weeks. An ideal maintenance therapy does not currently exist. CONCLUSIONS: Selection of maintenance therapy is based on a combination of evidence from controlled trials and patient features including disease severity and location, co-morbidities, previous response to treatment, and previous surgical resection. The options for maintenance therapy include therapy cessation and patient observation following successful induction, budesonide, or immunosuppressive therapy.
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 | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".