Efficacy and safety of mesalamine suppositories for treatment of ulcerative proctitis in children and adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment of ulcerative proctitis has not been well studied in pediatric populations. We conducted an open-label trial to evaluate the clinical efficacy of a mesalamine suppository (500 mg) to treat pediatric patients with mild to moderate ulcerative proctitis. METHODS: Pediatric patients (5-17 years of age) with ulcerative proctitis were enrolled for baseline evaluations, including a flexible sigmoidoscopic (or colonoscopic) assessment with biopsies performed at study entry. Eligible patients were started on mesalamine suppositories (500 mg) at bedtime. Two follow-up visits were scheduled after 3 and 6 weeks of treatment. The dose could be increased to 500 mg twice daily at the week 3 follow-up visit if deemed appropriate by the investigator based on the Disease Activity Index (DAI) assessment. The primary outcome measure was a DAI derived from a composite score of stool frequency, urgency of defecation, rectal bleeding, and general well-being. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. The mean DAI value decreased from 5.5 at baseline to 1.6 and 1.5 at weeks 3 and 6, respectively (P < 0.0001). Only 4 patients had their dose increased to 500 mg twice daily at week 3. Forty-one patients experienced at least one adverse event, most of which were deemed mild and unrelated to study therapy. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were gastrointestinal (n = 30, 61.2%). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that a daily bedtime dose of a 500 mg mesalamine suppository is safe and efficacious in children with ulcerative proctitis.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".