Do patients consider postoperative maintenance therapy for Crohnʼs disease worthwhile?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment decision making for postoperative Crohn's disease is complex because of the increasing number of maintenance therapies available with competing risk-benefit profiles. The main objective of this study was to determine the distribution of patients' preferences for selected postoperative maintenance therapies. METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional survey in which patients with Crohn's disease completed a standardized interview. Each participant completed 5 tasks that compared: (1) no medication and 5-ASA, (2) fish oil and 5-ASA, (3) metronidazole and 5-ASA, (4) budesonide and 5-ASA, and (5) azathioprine and 5-ASA. For each task, the minimum change in treatment effect size between the 2 treatments that the participant considered worthwhile was determined. RESULTS: The distribution of the participants' preference scores varied widely for each task. When fish oil, metronidazole, budesonide, and azathioprine were considered equally effective to 5-ASA, 92.9%, 28.8%, 38.4%, and 19% of the participants, respectively, preferred these medications relative to 5-ASA. These percentages increased to 98.4%, 54.8%, 61.9%, and 50.8%, respectively, when fish oil, metronidazole, budesonide, and azathioprine were considered to offer a 5% absolute risk reduction relative to 5-ASA. Regression analysis did not identify any clinical or demographic variables predictive of the participants' treatment preferences. CONCLUSIONS: The participants' preferences for postoperative maintenance therapies were widely distributed, and no clinical or demographic factors predicted these preferences. This emphasizes the need for effective communication between physician and patient in order to select the treatment options most consistent with a patient's informed preferences.
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 | 0.017 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".