Review article: moving towards common therapeutic goals in Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Crohn's disease (CD) and rheumatoid arthritis are chronic, progressive and disabling conditions that frequently lead to structural tissue damage. Based on strategies originally developed for rheumatoid arthritis, the treatment goal for CD has recently moved from exclusively controlling symptoms to both clinical remission and complete mucosal healing (deep remission), with the final aim of preventing bowel damage and disability. AIM: To review the similarities and differences in treatment goals between CD and rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: This review examined manuscripts from 1982 to 2016 that discussed and/or proposed therapeutic goals with their supportive evidence in CD and rheumatoid arthritis. RESULTS: Proposed therapeutic strategies to improve outcomes in both rheumatoid arthritis and CD include: (i) evaluation of musculoskeletal or organ damage and disability, (ii) tight control, (iii) treat-to-target, (iv) early intervention and (v) disease modification. In contrast to rheumatoid arthritis, there is a paucity of disease-modification trials in CD. CONCLUSIONS: Novel therapeutic strategies in CD based on tight control of objective signs of inflammation are expected to change disease course and patients' lives by halting progression or, ideally, preventing the occurrence of bowel damage. Most of these strategies require validation in prospective studies, whereas several disease-modification trials have addressed these issues in rheumatoid arthritis over the last decade. The recent approval of new drugs in CD such as vedolizumab and ustekinumab should facilitate initiation of disease-modification trials in CD in the near future.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".