A101 NO ASSOCIATION WITH RISK OF INFECTION IN IBD WITH HIGH SERUM INFLIXIMAB LEVELS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improved rates of clinical outcome in IBD are associated with higher IFX levels and some patients are treated with higher than standard dosing due to suboptimal response. Data evaluating the correlation between IFX levels and toxicity is limited. To evaluate the safety of IFX in IBD patients and compare the frequency of adverse events (AE’s) in relation to their levels We performed a retrospective analysis of 180 patients with at least one measurement of serum IFX from 2012 through 2016. The cohort was divided separately according to an IFX level cut-off of 15 ug/ml and into 3 groups based on IFX concentrations (<8; 8–20; >20). Frequencies of AE’s were compared using logistic regression. The frequency of total AE’s was significantly higher in patients with IFX levels less than 15 ug/ml (64% vs 34%; p=0.02). Infusion reactions were also more frequent in the NR group (10% vs 0% p=0.015). However, there were no significant associations between the rate of infections, skin manifestations or serious AE and IFX levels. No significant differences in rates of infections were demonstrated among the 3 groups of IFX levels. Higher IFX levels were not associated with higher rates of infections. Clinicians and patients should be aware of the risks of AE with IFX therapy but higher dosing should not be avoided if clinically indicated. 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.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.006 | 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".