Anti‐TNF, Infliximab, and Adalimumab Can Be Effective in Eosinophilic Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic enterocolitis (EEC) is an emerging distinct inflammatory bowel disease of unknown etiology. There are no published data on the effect of infliximab (IFX) or adalimumab (ADA) for the treatment of refractory cases. METHODS: A report of all pediatric cases with EEC treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor, identified after an open international call. RESULTS: We describe here the first 8 children with refractory EEC who were treated with IFX (75% boys; mean age at diagnosis 8.6 ± 4.03 [range 1.6-14 years]; mean age at IFX treatment 11.7 ± 4.4 [range 4.2-16 years]). Allergic and infectious causes of EEC were excluded in all cases. Rapid and complete clinical remission was documented in 6 (75%) children following the induction infusions: 3 (38%) with endoscopic remission, 2 (25%) with endoscopic improvement, and 1 unknown. Four of the 6 responders had secondary loss of response and were switched to ADA, 3 of whom with sustained remission using high doses. Overall, the 6 responders were followed for a median of 7 years (range 4-12; interquartile range 6.4-8.8 years) without evidence of developing Crohn disease or ulcerative colitis. The only case with macroscopic findings on endoscopy was a primary nonresponder. CONCLUSIONS: IFX and ADA may be effective in cases of refractory idiopathic EEC; however, because this is an uncontrolled report, further prospective studies are warranted.
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) | 0.001 | 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".