Recommendations for the treatment of ulcerative colitis with infliximab: A gastroenterology expert group consensus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Infliximab is currently the only biologic approved for treatment of adults with moderate to severe, active ulcerative colitis (UC) unresponsive to conventional therapies. It rapidly controls symptoms, induces and sustains steroid-free remission, stimulates mucosal healing, and reduces serious complications. Although infliximab tends to be reserved for patients with severe disease, it may be even more beneficial for moderate disease earlier in the disease course. Therefore, it is important to identify which patients are candidates for infliximab therapy. METHODS: A collaborative Delphi survey was used to obtain consensus on use of biologic therapy in patients with UC from an expert panel of 12 gastroenterologists with substantial experience using infliximab in clinical practice and clinical trials. The panel also addressed issues that influence the use of infliximab in UC, including its potential as an alternative to surgery. RESULTS: The panel agreed that: (1) it is necessary to adopt additional treatment goals beyond symptom control, i.e., complete mucosal healing, steroid-free remission, improved QoL, and reduced long-term complications; (2) it may be possible to achieve these treatment goals with infliximab, especially if it is used earlier in the course of UC; and (3) infliximab should be offered as an alternative to surgery in patients being considered for colectomy. The panel also agreed on factors for identifying candidates for infliximab therapy (e.g., persistently active UC, steroid-dependent/refractory disease, and high C-reactive protein). CONCLUSIONS: This consensus statement provides useful and practical information on how to achieve evolving treatment goals with infliximab in moderate to severe UC.
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 | 0.068 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
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".