Recommendations for new trials of currently available therapy by the IOIBD task force on clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of the review process before defining a new clinical agenda for the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America, a survey of gastroenterologísts expert in the therapy of inflammatory bowel disease was performed. Many of those who participated in the survey were members of the IOIBD (International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease). The survey was discussed and modified by members of the IOIBD Task Force on Clinical Trials. This report summarizes the opinions of members of the Task Force. Although the Task Force looks forward with optimism to the development of new and novel medications, it is clear that for many years to come, therapy for inflammatory bowel disease will be based on currently available medications. Despite years of experience and numerous trials, however, many questions remain to be answered. The focus of pharmacotherapy should be the provision of therapy that is safe, associated with minimal side effects, and available at a reasonable cost. We also recognize that surgical intervention should be considered as part of the natural history of the disease and not be construed as failure on the part of the medical community.
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 | 0.412 | 0.424 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.058 | 0.049 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.028 |
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".