Role of biological therapy for inflammatory bowel disease in developing countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has become a global disease. Its incidence in developing countries is rising. In Asia, this has been attributed to the rapid modernisation and westernisation of the population. As IBD emerges in developing nations, there is a need to reconcile the most appropriate treatment for these patient populations from the perspectives of both disease presentation and cost. In the West, biological agents are the fastest-growing segment of the prescription drug market. They typically cost several thousand to several tens of thousands of dollars per patient per year. The healthcare systems in developing countries will struggle to afford such expensive treatments. Developing countries cover two-thirds of the earth's surface and are home to 3-5 billion inhabitants, constituting three-quarters of all humanity. If IBD emerges to the same extent in those countries as it has in the West, the need for biological therapy will increase dramatically, and the pharmaceutical industry, healthcare providers, patient advocate groups, governments and non-governmental organisations will have to discuss how to handle this. The authors propose that this dialogue should begin now with regard to (1) the major needs of patients with complicated IBD in developing countries, (2) the potential need for biological therapy in developing countries to treat IBD, (3) the necessary infrastructure for selecting patients with IBD who need biological therapy, and (4) medical/ethical issues limiting the use of biological therapy.
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".