Low molecular weight heparin (tinzaparin) vs. placebo in the treatment of mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heparin has anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory activity which may be of therapeutic benefit in the treatment of ulcerative colitis. AIM: To test whether low molecular weight heparin, given subcutaneously, would provide a significant therapeutic response compared with placebo in the treatment of mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multi-centre trial comparing tinzaparin 175 anti-Xa IU/kg/day (innohep, LEO Pharma) subcutaneously for 14 days followed by tinzaparin 4500 anti-Xa IU/day subcutaneously for 28 days with placebo, administered subcutaneously once daily for up to 42 days. The primary outcome measure was the mean change in colitis activity from baseline to the end of study treatment assessed by the sum of scores of stool frequency, rectal bleeding, sigmoidoscopic appearance and histology. Secondary outcome measures included changes in individual activity indices and laboratory parameters. Patients were assessed at weekly intervals for 6 weeks and within 1 week of completing treatment. RESULTS: One hundred patients with active ulcerative colitis (up to six bloody stools per day, no fever, no tachycardia or systemic disturbances) were randomized. Forty-eight received tinzaparin and 52 received placebo. The difference in the mean percentage change in colitis activity from baseline to end of treatment (tinzaparin-placebo) was not statistically significant (P = 0.84). There was no difference between tinzaparin and placebo in any secondary outcome measure. One major bleed (rectal), occurred in a patient receiving placebo. CONCLUSION: This is the largest trial to date of heparin in ulcerative colitis. The results show no benefit of low molecular weight heparin over placebo in mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".