Physician perspectives on unresolved issues in the use of conventional therapy in Crohn's disease: Results from an international survey and discussion programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data on the optimal use of conventional therapies in Crohn's disease are lacking in guidelines. An educational programme was established to explore questions raised in clinical practice and to provide practical answers. METHODS: Telephone interviews with 96 gastroenterologists and a web survey of 1370 gastroenterologists identified 26 key questions. Ten questions were taken forward to the next stage based on the opinion of an International Steering Committee. Draft answers to the questions were prepared from available evidence following a literature search. The draft answers were debated in national meetings of participating countries (n=36) and voted on using a standard scoring system. Revised answers went forward to an international meeting and were debated and voted on using the same methodology. Final answers were developed, based on evidence and clinical experience of the participants. RESULTS: Evidence on corticosteroid and immunomodulator use such as dosage, timing and duration, choice of drug or regimen, and safety is scarce. Key points of the answers included the importance of: identifying patients with poor prognosis; early intervention with optimal doses of immunomodulators; avoiding prolonged or repetitive corticosteroid therapy; achieving corticosteroid-free remission; achieving a balance between clinical benefit and safety when intensifying or prolonging therapy or combining different agents; re-evaluating therapy at appropriate time points; and considering the role of biomarkers and mucosal healing. CONCLUSIONS: The answers to 10 key questions were based on available evidence and clinical experience of programme participants. It is hoped they will be of practical use in everyday gastroenterology practice.
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 | 0.040 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".