A randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled study of granulocyte/monocyte apheresis for moderate to severe Crohn's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Activated granulocytes and monocytes may contribute to the pathogenesis of Crohn's disease (CD). In small, uncontrolled studies, granulocyte/monocyte apheresis (GMA) has shown promise in treating CD. We conducted a randomised, double-blind study to compare GMA with a sham procedure in patients with moderate to severe CD. DESIGN: Patients with active CD as defined by a Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) of 220-450 were randomly allocated in a 2:1 ratio to treatment with GMA using the Adacolumn Apheresis System (JIMRO, Takasaki, Japan) or sham apheresis. Ten apheresis sessions were scheduled over a 9-week period, and efficacy was evaluated at week 12. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving clinical remission (CDAI score ≤ 150 without use of prohibited drugs). RESULTS: Clinical remission was achieved by 17.8% of patients in the GMA group (n = 157) compared with 19.2% of those in the sham control group (n = 78) (absolute difference--1.4% (95% CI--12.8% to 8.5%), p = 0.858). Clinical response (defined as a ≥ 100-point decrease in CDAI) was achieved by 28.0% and 26.9% of patients in the GMA and sham groups, respectively (p = 1.000). The two treatments produced similar changes from baseline in CDAI and quality of life, as well as in disease severity assessed endoscopically. The incidence and types of adverse events did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: GMA was well tolerated, but this study did not demonstrate its effectiveness over a sham procedure in inducing clinical remission or response in patients with moderate to severe CD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".