A retrospective study showing maintenance treatment options for paediatric CD in the first year following diagnosis after induction of remission with EEN: supplemental enteral nutrition is better than nothing!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A limited body of research suggests that ongoing maintenance enteral nutrition (MEN) can be beneficial in maintaining disease remission in Crohn's Disease (CD). We aimed to assess how achievable MEN is and whether it helps to prolong remission. METHODS: Patients newly diagnosed with CD in 2010 and 2011 who commenced exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) for 8 weeks were followed up for a year post diagnosis. All patients who took EEN were encouraged to continue MEN post EEN. Data on azathioprine use was also collected. Categorical variables were compared using chi-square/Fischer's exact test. Medians were expressed along with complete data ranges. RESULTS: 59 patients (34 male, median age 11.07 years, range 2.5-16.33 years) were identified. 11/59 (18%) had a poor response to EEN and were switched to steroids. 48/59 patients completed 8 weeks EEN and achieved clinical remission/response. 46/48 patients received Modulen IBD®, 29/48 (60%) consumed EEN orally and 19/48 (40%) via NGT. 15/48 (31%) patients were able to continue MEN post EEN completion. MEN was consumed for a mean of 10.8 months (range 4-14 months). 14/15 patients drank MEN and 1/15 had MEN via NGT. Remission rates at 1 year in patients continuing MEN were 60% (9/15) compared to 15% (2/13) in patients taking no treatment (p = 0.001) and 65% (13/20) in patients taking azathioprine (p = 0.14). CONCLUSION: A sub group of patients can continue MEN as a maintenance treatment and this seems a useful strategy, especially in those who are not commencing azathioprine.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".