Sargramostim (GM-CSF) for Induction of Remission in Crohnʼs Disease: A Cochrane Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Functional Bowel Disorders Systematic Review of Randomized Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We planned to systematically review the efficacy of sargramostim (granulocyte colony stimulating factor [GM-CSF]) for remission induction in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). METHODS: A literature search to April 2011 was performed to identify all randomized trials studying sargramostim in patients with CD. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate study quality and the GRADE criteria were utilized to assess the overall quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Three randomized studies (total 537 patients) were identified. The risk of bias was low for the three included studies. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who achieved clinical remission (GM-CSF 25.3%; placebo 17.5%; relative risk [RR] 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-3.50; P = 0.17), or 100-point clinical response (GM-CSF 38.3%; placebo 24.8%; RR 1.71 95% CI 0.98-2.97; P = 0.06). There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients (GM-CSF 95.8%; placebo 89.3%) who experienced adverse events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.99-1.16; P = 0.08), or serious adverse events (GM-CSF 12.0% vs. placebo 4.8%; RR 2.21; 95% CI 0.84-5.81; P = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Sargramostim does not appear to be more effective than placebo for induction of clinical remission or improvement in active CD. However, the GRADE analysis indicates that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary and secondary outcomes was low due to sparse data and heterogeneity, indicating that further research likely would have a significant impact on the effect estimates.
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 | 0.015 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".