Treatment of Hospitalized Adult Patients With Severe Ulcerative Colitis: Toronto Consensus Statements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to provide updated explicit and relevant consensus statements for clinicians to refer to when managing hospitalized adult patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus group of 23 voting participants developed a series of recommendation statements that addressed pertinent clinical questions. An iterative voting and feedback process was used to do this in conjunction with systematic literature reviews. These statements were brought to a formal consensus meeting held in Toronto, Ontario (March 2010), when each statement was discussed, reformulated, voted upon, and subsequently revised until group consensus (at least 80% agreement) was obtained. The modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria were used to rate the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. RESULTS: As a result of the iterative process, consensus was reached on 21 statements addressing four themes (General considerations and nutritional issues, Steroid use and predictors of steroid failure, Cyclosporine and infliximab, and Surgical issues). CONCLUSIONS: Key recommendations for the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe UC include early escalation to second-line medical therapy with either infliximab or cyclosporine in individuals in whom parenteral steroids have failed after 72 h. These agents should be used in experienced centers where appropriate support is available. Sequential therapy with cyclosporine and infliximab is not recommended. Surgery is an option when first-line steroid therapy fails, and is indicated when second-line medical therapy fails and/or when complications arise during the hospitalization.
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 | 0.124 | 0.225 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".