Vedolizumab for Induction and Maintenance of Remission in Ulcerative Colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We performed a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. METHODS: A literature search to June 2014 identified all applicable randomized trials. Outcome measures were clinical and endoscopic remission, clinical and endoscopic response, quality of life, and adverse events. The risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated for each outcome. Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The GRADE criteria were used to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies (606 patients) were included. The risk of bias was low. Pooled analyses indicated that vedolizumab was significantly superior to placebo for induction of remission (RR = 0.86, 95% CI, 0.80-0.91), clinical response (RR = 0.82, 95% CI, 0.75-0.91), endoscopic remission (RR = 0.82, 95% CI, 0.75-0.91), and for achieving remission at 52 weeks in week 6 responders (RR = 2.73, 95% CI, 1.78-4.18). GRADE analyses suggested that the overall quality of the evidence was high for induction of remission and moderate for maintenance therapy (due to sparse data consisting of 246 events). No statistically significant difference was observed in the incidence of adverse events between vedolizumab and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Vedolizumab is superior to placebo as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. Future studies are needed to define long-term efficacy and safety of this agent.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".