A Comparison of Methotrexate with Placebo for the Maintenance of Remission in Crohn's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with Crohn's disease often have relapses. Better treatments are needed for the maintenance of remission. Although methotrexate is an effective short-term treatment for Crohn's disease, its role in maintaining remissions is not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of patients with chronically active Crohn's disease who had entered remission after 16 to 24 weeks of treatment with 25 mg of methotrexate given intramuscularly once weekly. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either methotrexate at a dose of 15 mg intramuscularly once weekly or placebo for 40 weeks. No other treatments for Crohn's disease were permitted. We compared the efficacy of treatment by analyzing the proportion of patients who remained in remission at week 40. Remission was defined as a score of 150 or less on the Crohn's Disease Activity Index. RESULTS: Forty patients received methotrexate, and 36 received placebo. At week 40, 26 patients (65 percent) were in remission in the methotrexate group, as compared with 14 (39 percent) in the placebo group (P=0.04; absolute reduction in the risk of relapse, 26.1 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 4.4 percent to 47.8 percent). Fewer patients in the methotrexate group than in the placebo group required prednisone for relapse (11 of 40 [28 percent] vs. 21 of 36 [58 percent], P=0.01). None of the patients who received methotrexate had a severe adverse event; one patient in this group withdrew because of nausea. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with Crohn's disease who enter remission after treatment with methotrexate, a low dose of methotrexate maintains remission.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".