Unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis: A cochrane inflammatory bowel disease and functional bowel disorders systematic review of randomized trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to systematically review the efficacy of unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) for remission induction in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: A literature search to April 2011 was performed to identify all randomized trials studying UFH or LMWH use in patients with UC. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess study quality. RESULTS: LMWH administered subcutaneously showed no benefit over placebo for any outcome, including clinical remission, and clinical, endoscopic, or histological improvement. High-dose LMWH administered via an extended colon-release tablet demonstrated benefit over placebo for clinical remission (odds ratio [OR] 2.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32-5.67; P = 0.007), clinical improvement (OR 2.99; 95% CI 1.30-6.87; P = 0.01), and endoscopic improvement (OR 2.25; 95% CI 1.01-5.01; P = 0.05) but not endoscopic remission or histologic improvement. LMWH was not beneficial when added to standard therapy for clinical remission, clinical improvement, endoscopic remission, or endoscopic improvement. One study examining UFH versus corticosteroids for the treatment of severe UC demonstrated the inferiority of UFH for clinical improvement. More patients assigned to UFH had rectal hemorrhage as an adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: LMWH administered by extended colon-release tablets may be effective for the treatment of active UC. This benefit needs to be confirmed by further randomized controlled studies. The same benefits were not seen when LMWH was administered subcutaneously at lower doses. There is no evidence to support the use of UFH for the treatment of active UC.
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 | 0.013 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".