Evaluation of a daily practice composite score for the assessment of Crohn’s disease: the treatment impact of certolizumab pegol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Successful treatment of systemic inflammatory symptoms is essential for improving health-related quality of life in patients with active Crohn's disease. Patient-reported outcomes provide unique perspectives on the impact of chronic disease. It is unknown whether a combination of different instruments might improve sensitivity to clinically relevant changes in health status. AIM: To develop a composite score based upon Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) items. METHODS: Patients from the PRECiSE 2 trial who responded at week 6 to certolizumab pegol (CZP) were randomised to receive treatment with CZP 400 mg or placebo for up to 26 weeks. IBDQ and CDAI scores were assessed at weeks 0, 6, 16 and 26. A 'daily practice' composite score (DP-6) containing two items from the CDAI and four items from IBDQ was constructed. RESULTS: Correlation coefficients between the CDAI score and IBDQ total score at baseline and at week 26 were -0.344 and -0.603, respectively (P<0.05). All IBDQ items were improved following CZP treatment. The DP-6 had the highest responsiveness at assessing response to treatment, relative to CDAI total score, when compared with other scores. CONCLUSIONS: The DP-6 composite score could be used to optimise the use of existing instruments by serving as an index of symptoms due to systemic inflammation. Additional studies are needed to determine if the DP-6 composite score differentiates the impact of different treatments on patient-reported outcomes, and to determine if the use of the DP-6 improves the care of patients in clinical practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".