Impact of Infliximab and Cyclosporine on the Risk of Colectomy in Hospitalized Patients with Ulcerative Colitis Complicated by Cytomegalovirus—A Multicenter Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is frequently detected in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). The impact of CMV infection on the outcome of UC exacerbation remains unclear. The benefit of combining antiviral with anti-inflammatory treatment has not been evaluated yet. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of CMV-positive hospitalized patients with UC treated with antiviral therapy either alone or combined with salvage anti-inflammatory therapy (infliximab [IFX] or cyclosporine A [CsA]). METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective study of hospitalized CMV-positive patients with UC. The patients were classified into 2 groups: antiviral-if treated with antivirals alone; combined-if treated with both antiviral and anti-inflammatory therapy. The outcomes included the rate of colectomy in both arms during the course of hospitalization and after 3/12 months. RESULTS: A total of 110 patients were included; 47 (42.7%) patients did not receive IFX nor CsA; 36 (32.7%) received IFX during hospitalization or within 1 month before hospitalization; 20 (18.1%) patients received CsA during hospitalization; 7 (6.4%) were exposed to both IFX and CsA. The rate of colectomy was 14.5% at 30 days, 20.0% at 3 months, and 34.8% at 12 months. Colectomy rates were similar across treatment groups. No clinical and demographic variables were independently associated with the risk of colectomy. CONCLUSIONS: IFX or cyclosporine therapy is not associated with additional risk for colectomy over antiviral therapy alone in hospitalized CMV-positive patients with UC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".