MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001247559 · doi:10.1002/ibd.21340

Purine analog for the prevention of postoperative recurrence of Crohnʼs disease

2010· letter· en· W2001247559 on OpenAlexaff
Julia J. Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueInflammatory Bowel Diseases · 2010
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCrohn's diseasePurine analogueDiseaseGastroenterologyInternal medicineCancer researchPurineOncologyBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peyrin-Biroulet L, Deltenre P, Ardizzone S, et al. Azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for the prevention of postoperative recurrence in Crohn's disease: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:2089-2096. Postoperative recurrence of Crohn's disease (CD) is a major clinical problem for gastroenterologists and their patients. Endoscopic recurrence, which precedes clinical recurrence, has been reported in up to 90% of patients undergoing resection.1,2 To prevent recurrence, patients are routinely placed on antibiotic therapy (metronidazole for 3 months) with or without 5-aminosalicylate compounds. Studies examining the efficacy of purine analogs compared to conventional therapy have yielded conflicting results.3,4 Peyrin-Biroulet et al performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to define the effect of purine analogs (azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine) for the prevention of postoperative CD. The control group consisted of placebo or mesalamine. Since only studies reporting the clinical and endoscopic recurrence were included in this meta-analysis, 11 out of 15 potentially eligible articles were excluded. There were a total of 433 patients from four clinical trials: 198 patients were treated with purine analogs and 235 patients received controls. For clinical recurrence rate at 1 year, the mean difference between the two groups was 8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1%-15%) with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 13; at 2 years, the mean difference between the two groups was 13% (95% CI: 2%-24%) with an NNT of 8. For endoscopic recurrence, three studies involving 293 patients with endoscopic evaluations performed at 1 year were included in the analysis. There were 129 patients in the purine analogs group and 164 in the control arms. At 1 year the mean difference in recurrence rate between the two groups was 15% (95% CI: 1.8%-29%) with an NNT of 7. The efficacy at 2 years was not evaluated since only one study was available for this endpoint.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInflammatory Bowel DiseasesSame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207