Effectiveness of budesonide MMX (Cortiment) for the treatment of mild-to-moderate active ulcerative colitis: study protocol for a prospective multicentre observational cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A study has been developed to assess the use and effectiveness of budesonide MMX for mild-to-moderate active ulcerative colitis (UC) in routine clinical practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A prospective, multicentre, observational, cohort study of 300 patients prescribed budesonide MMX for the treatment of mild-to-moderate active UC will be conducted in Europe, Israel and Canada. Patients will be treated with budesonide MMX9 mg daily for induction of remission for ≤8 weeks. Data on effectiveness, including patient-reported outcomes, tolerability and use will be recorded at the end of treatment and at ≥2 weeks after. The primary outcome (improvement ≥3 point in the clinical subscores of the UC Disease Activity Index score at the end of treatment) will be compared in: patients who receive budesonide MMX added to mesalazine >2 weeks after increased/optimised mesalazine dose for the treatment of flare (late add-on); patients who receive budesonide MMX added to mesalazine ≤2 weeks since mesalazine increased/optimised for the treatment of flare, or without mesalazine dose modification (early add-on); and patients who receive budesonide MMX as monotherapy for the treatment of flare (mono). Propensity scoring will be used to minimise bias and confounding inherent in observational studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: First ethical approval: Ethikkommission der Ärztekammer Hamburg (12/22/2015). The results will be published in full. DISCUSSION: Completion of primary data collection is expected in December 2017. Our results will provide further evidence on the effectiveness of budesonide MMX to support clinicians in their daily practice and inform therapeutic guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02586259.
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 | 0.035 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.008 |
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".