Infliximab Maintenance Therapy for Fistulizing Crohn's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infliximab, a monoclonal antibody against tumor necrosis factor, is an effective maintenance therapy for patients with Crohn's disease without fistulas. It is not known whether infliximab is an effective maintenance therapy for patients with fistulas. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of infliximab maintenance therapy in 306 adult patients with Crohn's disease and one or more draining abdominal or perianal fistulas of at least three months' duration. Patients received 5 mg of infliximab per kilogram of body weight intravenously on weeks 0, 2, and 6. A total of 195 patients who had a response at weeks 10 and 14 and 87 patients who had no response were then randomly assigned to receive placebo or 5 mg of infliximab per kilogram every eight weeks and to be followed to week 54. The primary analysis was the time to the loss of response among patients who had a response at week 14 and underwent randomization. RESULTS: The time to loss of response was significantly longer for patients who received infliximab maintenance therapy than for those who received placebo maintenance (more than 40 weeks vs. 14 weeks, P<0.001). At week 54, 19 percent of patients in the placebo maintenance group had a complete absence of draining fistulas, as compared with 36 percent of patients in the infliximab maintenance group (P=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with fistulizing Crohn's disease who have a response to induction therapy with infliximab have an increased likelihood of a sustained response over a 54-week period if infliximab treatment is continued every 8 weeks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".