The Effects of Infliximab Therapy on Health-Related Quality of Life in Ulcerative Colitis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The impact of infliximab induction and maintenance therapy on health-related quality of life (HRQL) was evaluated in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: In two placebo-controlled, double-blind studies (the Active Ulcerative Colitis Trials 1 and 2 [ACT 1 and 2]), 728 patients were randomized to placebo or infliximab 5 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg. Infusions were administered at weeks 0, 2, 6, and every 8 wk thereafter, up to week 22 (ACT 2) or 46 (ACT 1). Changes in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey physical and mental component summary (PCS and MCS, respectively) scores were analyzed. RESULTS: Baseline scores for the pooled patient population indicated substantial impairment in HRQL. Improvement at week 8 in the total IBDQ score was significantly greater in the infliximab 5-mg/kg (40, P < 0.001) and 10-mg/kg (36, P < 0.001) groups compared with the placebo group (28). Improvement at week 8 was also significantly greater in the infliximab 5- and 10-mg/kg groups for the PCS (6.8 and 5.9, respectively) and MCS (5.9 and 6.4, respectively) compared with placebo (PCS = 3.7, MCS = 3.0, P < 0.01 for all comparisons). Continued benefit was seen at weeks 30 and 54 with infliximab maintenance therapy (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Improvement in total IBDQ score correlated significantly (P < 0.001) with improvement in both PCS and MCS scores, and Mayo score. CONCLUSIONS: Infliximab therapy substantially improved HRQL in patients with UC. This benefit was sustained through 1 yr with maintenance infliximab therapy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".