Medical management of left-sided ulcerative colitis and ulcerative proctitis: Critical evaluation of therapeutic trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goal of this work was to critically evaluate the published studies on the treatment of ulcerative proctitis (UP) and left-sided ulcerative colitis (L-UC). The results of this review provided the content for the accompanying treatment guidelines, Clinical Guidelines for the Medical Management of Left-sided Ulcerative Colitis and Ulcerative Proctitis: Summary Statement. METHODS: All English language articles published between 1995 and September 2005 were identified through a comprehensive literature search using OVID and PubMed. The quality of the data supporting or rejecting the use of specific therapies was categorized by a data quality grading scale. An "A+" grade was assigned to treatment supported by multiple high-quality randomized controlled trials with consistent results, whereas a "D" grade was given to therapy supported only by expert opinion. The therapeutic efficacy of a treatment was defined by its success in treating UP and L-UC compared with placebo. A medication was ranked as "excellent" if it was specifically studied for UP and L-UC and had consistently positive results compared with placebo or another agent. Quality and efficacy scores were agreed on by author consensus. RESULTS: For the acute treatment of UP or L-UC, the rectally administered corticosteroids and mesalazine (5-ASA), either alone or in combination with oral 5-ASAs, are the most effective therapy: evidence quality, A+; efficacy, excellent. Only rectally administered 5-ASA received an A+/excellent rating for maintenance of remission. Infliximab received an A+ grade for induction and maintenance of remission but only a "good" rating because the studies were performed in all UC, not specifically UP or L-UC. CONCLUSIONS: This critical evaluation of treatment provides a "report card" on medications available for the management of patients with UP and L-UC. The guidelines should provide a useful reference and supplement for physicians treating UC patients.
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 | 0.179 | 0.383 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".