MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055879151 · doi:10.1038/ajg.2011.70

Glucocorticosteroid Therapy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2011· review· en· W2055879151 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
FundersAbbott Laboratories
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboBudesonideRelative riskInternal medicineMeta-analysisAdverse effectUlcerative colitisConfidence intervalInflammatory bowel diseaseRandomized controlled trialGastroenterologyDiseaseCorticosteroidPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The use of glucocorticosteroids to treat both Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) is widespread, but no systematic review and meta-analysis has examined the issue of efficacy of these agents in its entirety. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched (through December 2010). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with active or quiescent CD comparing standard glucocorticosteroids or budesonide with placebo or each other, or comparing standard glucocorticosteroids with placebo in active UC, were eligible. Dichotomous data were extracted to obtain relative risk (RR) of failure to achieve remission in active disease, and RR of relapse of activity in quiescent disease, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Adverse events data were extracted where reported. RESULTS: The search identified 3,061 citations, and 20 trials were eligible. Only one trial was at low risk of bias. Standard glucocorticosteroids were superior to placebo for UC remission (RR of no remission=0.65; 95% CI 0.45-0.93). Both trials of standard glucocorticosteroids in CD remission reported a statistically significant effect, but because of heterogeneity between studies, the overall effect was not significant (RR=0.46; 95% CI 0.17-1.28). Budesonide was superior to placebo for CD remission (RR=0.73; 95% CI 0.63-0.84), but not in preventing CD relapse (RR=0.93; 95% CI 0.83-1.04). Standard glucocorticosteroids were superior to budesonide for CD remission (RR=0.82; 95% CI 0.68-0.98), but glucocorticosteroid-related adverse events were commoner (RR=1.64; 95% CI 1.34-2.00). CONCLUSIONS: Standard glucocorticosteroids are probably effective in inducing remission in UC, and may be of benefit in CD. Budesonide induces remission in active CD, but is less effective than standard glucocorticosteroids, and is of no benefit in preventing CD relapse.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.264 · 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