Methotrexate in inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Methotrexate is useful in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but its role is secondary because of its limited experience and a supposedly unfavorable safety profile. AIM: To describe the efficacy and safety of methotrexate in a long-term real clinical practice. METHODS: Retrospectively reviewed records of IBD patients treated with methotrexate in eight hospitals of Madrid (Spain). RESULTS: A total of 77 patients were included (80% Crohn's disease); 94% received methotrexate because of steroid dependency. Overall, 82% of the patients initially responded (28% remission). Eighty-eight percent of the patients followed maintenance treatment for a mean of 17 (range: 1-108) months. Forty percent of the patients lost response at a mean of 57 weeks after starting methotrexate. No statistically significant differences were found in the response rates in terms of the disease type, route of administration, or the Montreal Classification category. The mean methotrexate cumulative dose was 1108 mg (range: 25-6480). The main adverse events included 10 cases of gastrointestinal symptoms, four of myelotoxicity, and 10 of abnormal liver function tests, and led to methotrexate withdrawal in four (5%) patients. Transient elastography, performed in 46 patients, detected six additional cases with significant fibrosis and normal liver function tests. CONCLUSION: Methotrexate is useful in inducing a response in IBD, although its efficacy decreases frequently through the follow-up. Although methotrexate seems safe in the long term, in addition to biochemical controls, a more accurate method to detect liver damage should be considered.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".