Cyclosporine for Severe Ulcerative Colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate evidence for the use of cyclosporine in treating patients with severe ulcerative colitis. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database, and ISI Web of Knowledge (1966-November 2005) with the search terms cyclosporine, cyclosporin A, CsA, ulcerative colitis, UC, inflammatory bowel disease, IBD, steroid-refractory, and immunosuppression. Additional papers were located by hand-searching relevant references. Only human studies in adults and literature published in English were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: Intravenous cyclosporine has been evaluated for the treatment of severe ulcerative colitis in 4 randomized, controlled trials, as well as in many open-label and retrospective studies. Studies that evaluated cyclosporine for severe ulcerative colitis were reviewed. All 4 controlled trials showed an initial positive clinical response as defined by the Crohn's Activity Index when intravenous cyclosporine 4 mg/kg/day was administered as monotherapy or combined with intravenous corticosteroids. One of the 4 trials indicated that high-dose cyclosporine (4 mg/kg/day) has no additional clinical benefit over the low-dose (2 mg/kg/day) and that the lower dose may improve safety related to dose-dependent adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to support the use of intravenous cyclosporine for patients with severe ulcerative colitis who are refractory to corticosteroid therapy. Because most of the adverse effects associated with cyclosporine are dose dependent, therapy should be initiated with the lower 2 mg/kg/day dose. Subsequent doses should be adjusted based on cyclosporine blood concentrations of 150-250 ng/mL. Cyclosporine should be used only to induce remission and serve as a "bridge" to azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine maintenance therapy. At this time, there are insufficient data to support the long-term use of cyclosporine monotherapy for avoidance of surgery or maintenance of remission.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".