Extent of Early Clinical Response to Infliximab Predicts Long-term Treatment Success in Active Ulcerative Colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The long-term effectiveness of infliximab (IFX) in ulcerative colitis (UC) and predictors of treatment response remain poorly characterized. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in 213 consecutive patients with active steroid-refractory or steroid-dependent UC treated with induction and scheduled maintenance IFX at an inflammatory bowel disease referral center. Outcomes included annual steroid-free remission (SFR), IFX failure with discontinuation, colectomy, and serious adverse events. RESULTS: The 1- and 5-year cumulative probabilities for SFR were 39% and 14%, for IFX failure were 31.7% and 55.6%, and for colectomy were 19.2% and 37.4%, respectively. A sensitivity analysis considering the last clinical observation in patients with incomplete follow-up demonstrated a long-term SFR rate of 36%. Among responders to IFX induction therapy, achieving clinical remission before maintenance IFX therapy predicted SFR at 1 year (adjusted odds ratio = 4.50; 95% CI, 1.75-11.53), whereas the need for IFX dose intensification during the first year of therapy predicted a lower odds of SFR at 1 year (adjusted odds ratio = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11-0.67) and a greater hazard of IFX failure beyond 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio = 2.57; 95% CI, 1.14-5.81). Older age and shorter UC duration at IFX initiation predicted poorer long-term outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate-to-severe UC treated with scheduled IFX at an inflammatory bowel disease center, close to half of the patients are still on IFX at 5 years, although a smaller proportion of patients achieve long-term SFR. The magnitude and stability of early response to IFX is associated with long-term therapeutic benefit to 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".