MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014639696 · doi:10.1097/mib.0000000000000218

Tumor Necrosis Factor-Alpha Antagonists Twenty Years Later

2014· review· en· W2014639696 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony A. Akobeng, William J. Sandborn, Stephen J. Bickston, Nilesh Chande, Lisa M. Shackelton, Sigrid Nelson, Brian G. Feagan

Bibliographic record

VenueInflammatory Bowel Diseases · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityRobarts Clinical Trials
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGolimumabCertolizumab pegolMedicineInfliximabAdalimumabTumor necrosis factor alphaInflammatory bowel diseaseInternal medicineFood and drug administrationCrohn's diseaseClinical trialDiseasePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1998, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted regulatory approval to the first tumor necrosis factor-α antagonist, infliximab, for the treatment of moderately to severely active Crohn's disease. As of 2013, there were 3 additional tumor necrosis factor-α antagonists commercially available for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease in the United States: adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and golimumab. Despite a vast literature describing both clinical trial and clinical practice experience with these agents, there remain important questions regarding the efficacy and safety of tumor necrosis factor-α antagonists for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. These questions and the best available evidence to answer them were discussed during a Cochrane Collaboration session held at the 2013 Digestive Diseases Week annual meeting. This article reviews the data from that session.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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