Putting Rectal 5-Aminosalicylic Acid in Its Place: The Role in Distal Ulcerative Colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oral aminosalicylates such as sulfasalazine and mesalamine are widely prescribed for the treatment of mild or moderately active distal ulcerative colitis. However, a critical review of the literature demonstrates that rectal 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) is the optimal therapy for this disease. Meta-analyses of published trials show that rectally delivered 5-ASA is superior to placebo and to conventional rectal corticosteroids in inducing remission of distal ulcerative colitis, whereas the combination of rectal 5-ASA with a rectal corticosteroid or oral aminosalicylate is superior to rectal 5-ASA alone. For maintaining remission of distal ulcerative colitis, rectal 5-ASA is significantly better than placebo and at least as effective as oral 5-ASA. The dosage forms available for rectal delivery include suppositories, foams, and liquid enemas, and selection among these preparations should be guided by the proximal extent of disease and patient preference. The efficacy of rectal 5-ASA is complemented by its low rate of reported adverse effects, which may reflect its reduced potential for systemic absorption. This review summarizes the evidence supporting the role of rectal 5-ASA as a first-line therapy for mild or moderately active distal ulcerative colitis, and offers guidelines for its use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".