MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098309233 · doi:10.1136/gut.2010.218271

Randomised placebo-controlled trial of teduglutide in reducing parenteral nutrition and/or intravenous fluid requirements in patients with short bowel syndrome

2011· article· en· W2098309233 on OpenAlexaff
Palle Bekker Jeppesen, Richard Gilroy, M. Pertkiewicz, Johane P. Allard, Bernard Messing, Stephen J. O’Keefe

Bibliographic record

VenueGut · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
KeywordsMedicineParenteral nutritionShort bowel syndromePlaceboGastroenterologyInternal medicinePlacebo-controlled studyClinical endpointRandomized controlled trialSurgeryDouble blind

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Teduglutide, a GLP-2 analogue, may restore intestinal structural and functional integrity by promoting repair and growth of the mucosa and reducing gastric emptying and secretion, thereby increasing fluid and nutrient absorption in patients with short bowel syndrome (SBS). This 24-week placebo-controlled study evaluated the ability of teduglutide to reduce parenteral support in patients with SBS with intestinal failure. METHODS: In 83 patients randomised to receive subcutaneous teduglutide 0.10 mg/kg/day (n = 32), 0.05 mg/kg/day (n = 35) or placebo (n = 16) once daily, parenteral fluids were reduced at 4-week intervals if intestinal fluid absorption (48 h urine volumes) increased ≥ 10%. Responders were subjects who demonstrated reductions of ≥ 20% in parenteral volumes from baseline at weeks 20 and 24. The primary efficacy end point, a graded response score (GRS), took into account higher levels and earlier onset of response, leading to longer duration of response. The intensity of the response was defined as a reduction from baseline in parenteral volume (from 20% to 100%), and the duration of the response was considered the response at weeks 16, 20 and 24. The results were tested according to a step-down procedure starting with the 0.10 mg/kg/day dose. RESULTS: Using the GRS criteria, teduglutide in a dose of 0.10 mg/kg/day did not have a statistically significant effect compared with placebo (8/32 vs 1/16, p=0.16), while teduglutide in a dose of 0.05 mg/kg/day had a significant effect (16/35, p = 0.007). Since parenteral volume reductions were equal (353 ± 475 and 354 ± 334 ml/day), the trend towards higher baseline parenteral volume (1816 ± 1008 vs 1374 ± 639 ml/day, p=0.11) in the 0.10 mg/kg/day group compared with the 0.05 mg/kg/day group may have accounted for this discrepancy. Three teduglutide-treated patients were completely weaned off parenteral support. Serious adverse events were distributed similarly between active treatment groups and placebo. Villus height, plasma citrulline concentration and lean body mass were significantly increased with teduglutide compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Teduglutide was safe, well tolerated, intestinotrophic and suggested pro-absorptive effects facilitating reductions in parenteral support in patients with SBS with intestinal failure. ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00172185.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations451
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGutSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207