MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792023491 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy009.114

A114 SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS: ENDOSCOPIC AND HISTOLOGIC PLACEBO RATES IN INDUCTION AND MAINTENANCE TRIALS OF ULCERATIVE COLITIS

2018· article· en· W2792023491 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMicroscopic Colitis
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of AlbertaRobarts Clinical TrialsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaceboMedicineInternal medicineClinical trialConfidence intervalMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialUlcerative colitisClinical endpointGastroenterologySurgeryDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treatment targets in ulcerative colitis (UC) have evolved to include normalization of objective endoscopic and histologic endpoints. Minimizing the endoscopic and histologic placebo response and remission rate is critical for the conduct of efficient randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and development of new treatments, in order to maximize ability to detect differences between active comparator and placebo. To quantify the endoscopic and histologic placebo response and remission rates in induction and maintenance UC RCTs and to identify trial design factors influencing these rates. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception through March 1, 2017 for placebo-controlled RCTs of adult patients with UC treated with aminosalicylates, immunosuppressants, corticosteroids, biologics, and oral small molecules. Endoscopic and histologic placebo response and remission rates for induction and maintenance trials were pooled using a random-effects model. Patient- and trial-level covariates were evaluated by constructing stratum-specific rates of placebo response/remission and by random-effects meta-regression analysis. Placebo endoscopic response/remission rates were reported in 45 induction and eight maintenance trials; placebo histologic response/remission rates were reported in nine induction trials. Pooled estimates for placebo induction endoscopic remission, induction endoscopic response, and maintenance endoscopic remission rates were 25% [95 confidence interval (CI): 22–30%], 36% [29–43%], and 20% [16–24%], respectively. The pooled histologic remission rate in induction trials was 16% [10–25%]. Disease severity, disease duration, trial setting, trial phase, class of active comparator, trial follow-up duration, and endoscopic sub-score criterion for trial inclusion were not predictive of placebo endoscopic or histologic remission rates. Pooled placebo endoscopic and histologic response and remission rates vary according to whether trials are designed for induction or maintenance. Potential strategies to further reduce these rates include standardization of histologic scoring as well as the definitions used for response and remission. Figure 1: Forest plot of induction trials reporting placebo endoscopic remission rates, pooled using random-effects model. None

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it