MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2257807249 · doi:10.1038/ajg.2016.7

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Infliximab or Cyclosporine as Rescue Therapy in Patients With Severe Ulcerative Colitis Refractory to Steroids

2016· review· en· W2257807249 on OpenAlexaff
Neeraj Narula, John K. Marshall, Jean–Frédéric Colombel, Grigorios I. Leontiadis, John G Williams, Zack Muqtadir, Walter Reinisch

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineInfliximabUlcerative colitisColectomyInternal medicineRescue therapyRefractory (planetary science)Adverse effectOdds ratioRandomized controlled trialGastroenterologySurgeryTumor necrosis factor alphaDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Acute severe steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis (UC) carries a poor prognosis and requires optimal management. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess cyclosporine and infliximab (IFX) as rescue agents in patients with steroid-refractory UC. METHODS: A literature search identified studies that investigated IFX and cyclosporine in steroid-refractory UC patients. The primary outcome was short-term response to treatment. Secondary outcomes included the rates of colectomy at 3 months and 12 months, adverse drug reactions, post-operative complications in those who received rescue therapy but underwent colectomy subsequently, and mortality. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. RESULTS: Overall, 16 studies with 1,473 participants were eligible for inclusion. Among three randomized controlled trials, no significant difference was seen with IFX compared with cyclosporine with regard to treatment response and 3- or 12-month colectomy. Among 13 non-randomized studies, IFX was associated with significantly higher rates of treatment response (OR 2.96 (95% CI 2.12-4.14, χ(2)=6.50, I(2)=0%)) and a lower 12-month colectomy rate (OR 0.42 (95% CI 0.22-0.83, χ(2)=30.94, I(2)=71%)), with no significant difference seen in the 3-month colectomy rate (OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.22-1.28, χ(2)=22.73, I(2)=69%)) compared with cyclosporine. There were no significant differences between IFX and cyclosporine in adverse drug-related events, post-operative complications, or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In the management of steroid-refractory severe UC, no definitive difference between IFX and cyclosporine is demonstrated by randomized trials, but non-randomized studies suggest that IFX is associated with better treatment response and lower risk of colectomy at 12 months. Prospective studies comparing dose-optimized IFX with cyclosporine are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.035
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations198
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207