Medical Treatment for Microscopic Colitis: A Community Hospital’s Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lymphocytic colitis (LC) is a chronic disorder characterized by watery diarrhea. This study sought to evaluate if LC recurs after therapy, and the time frame in which this occurs. Secondary objectives included length and type of therapy, drug-free intervals, and reasons for drug discontinuation. METHODS: A retrospective chart review between January 1, 2008 and October 30, 2015 of patients with biopsy-confirmed lymphocytic, collagenous, or microscopic colitis was conducted. Patient-reported average bowel movements/day were reviewed. Demographic data, dates of colonoscopy, follow-up, type and dose of medications used, and therapy start/stop dates were reviewed. RESULTS: Patients presenting with colonoscopic documented LC (n = 114) were predominantly female (88%), Caucasian (97%), with mean bowel movements/day of five. A total of 58/114 (51%) patients were placed on a therapy. Patients taking budesonide saw bowel movements/day reduced from 4.7 to 2.4 compared to 5.8 to 2.8 for those given 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA). First-line medications budesonide and 5-aminosalicylic acid failed in 12/58 (21%) of patients, other drugs also resulted in therapy changes. Thirty-five percent required their initial therapy changed and of those 40% required a second change. Symptom exacerbations were documented during therapy for 19% of patients; therapy changes resulted in good response. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of all LC cases (56/114) gradually improved without requiring therapy. Seventy-six percent of our treated patients responded well to budesonide when used as the first-line therapy. Similarly, 61.5% responded to 5-ASA. Budesonide was the drug of choice for flares. Tailoring drug therapy to meet individual patient's needs appears to be the best current approach to managing LC.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".