The effect of mesalazine therapy on quality of life in patients with mildly and moderately active ulcerative colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ulcerative colitis (UC) has a major impact on the quality of life (QoL) of affected patients. Patient-reported outcomes have not been thoroughly evaluated in patients with UC receiving oral mesalazine (mesalamine). AIM: To examine the effect of mesalazine on QoL of patients with mildly and moderately active UC and assess the time course of change, baseline disease severity, mesalazine dose and responder status on QoL parameters. METHODS: Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) data were combined from two double-blind, randomized, multicentre, active-controlled trials assessing 2.4 and 4.8 g/day oral delayed-release mesalazine in 687 patients. Mean score changes from baseline were compared at 3 and 6 weeks and effects of baseline severity, mesalazine dose and response to therapy were examined. RESULTS: Mesalazine significantly improved IBDQ scores at 3 and 6 weeks (mean increase, 29.6 and 39.7 points, respectively; P < 0.0001 for both). Improvement was greater for patients with moderate disease. Greater week 6 changes occurred in clinical responders than nonresponders (50.1 vs. 23.6 points, respectively; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Delayed-release oral mesalazine produces significant clinical and statistical improvements in QoL of patients with UC by 3 weeks, with further improvement at 6 weeks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".