Distal Ulcerative Colitis Refractory to Rectal Mesalamine: Role of Transdermal Nicotine versus Oral Mesalamine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Distal ulcerative colitis usually responds to treatment with rectal mesalamine, but the management of refractory cases is poorly defined. AIM: To evaluate the possible therapeutic benefit of transdermal nicotine versus oral mesalamine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with left-sided ulcerative colitis unresponsive to treatment with a mesalamine 4 g enema at bedtime were randomly allocated to additional therapy with either transdermal nicotine 15 mg daily or oral mesalamine 800 mg tid for four weeks. Clinical remission was evaluated by Rachmilewitz's activity index and confirmed by sigmoidoscopy. RESULTS: Remission was observed in 12 of 15 patients receiving additional treatment with nicotine and in five of 15 patients receiving additional treatment with oral mesalamine (P=0.027). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of transdermal nicotine to treatment with mesalamine enemas is significantly superior to combined therapy with oral and rectal mesalamine in patients with distal ulcerative colitis refractory to rectal mesalamine alone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".