Assessing the feasibility of injectable growth-promoting therapy in Crohn’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite optimal therapy, many children with Crohn's disease (CD) experience growth retardation. The objectives of the study are to assess the feasibility of a randomised control trial (RCT) of injectable forms of growth-promoting therapy and to survey the attitudes of children with CD and their parents to it. METHODS: A feasibility study was carried out to determine study arms, sample size and numbers of eligible patients. A face-to-face questionnaire surveyed willingness to consent to future participation in the RCT. Eligibility to the survey was any child under 18 (with their parent/guardian) with CD whose height standard deviation score (HtSDS) was ≤+1. Of 118 questionnaires, 94 (80%) were returned (48 by children and 46 by parents). RESULTS: The median age of the patients in the survey was 14.3 years (range 7.0 to 17.7), and 35 (73%) were male. Their median HtSDS was -1.2 (-3.01, 0.23), and it was lower than the median mid-parental HtSDS of -0.6 (-3.1, 1.4). We analysed the willingness of the children whose HtSDS <-1 to take part in the proposed RCT, being those most likely to require treatment. Overall, 18 (47%) children and 17 (46%) parents were willing. This increased to 61% of children who were slightly concerned about their height and 100% (4/4) of those very concerned. A common reason for not taking part in the RCT was fear of injections (44%); 111 children are required for randomisation into three study arms from nine centres. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of children and parents surveyed would take part in an RCT of growth-promoting therapy. Allaying fears about injections may result in higher recruitment rates.
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 | 0.028 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".