Performance of Crohn’s disease Clinical Trial Endpoints based upon Different Cutoffs for Patient Reported Outcomes or Endoscopic Activity: Analysis of EXTEND Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Clinical trial endpoints for Crohn's disease (CD) activity correlate poorly with mucosal inflammation; to assess treatment efficacy, patient-reported outcomes and endoscopic assessments are preferred. This study assessed the impact on treatment efficacy estimations of using different definitions of clinical and endoscopic remission and endoscopic response, and of using site- or central-based endoscopy evaluation. Methods: This post hoc analysis of data fromEXTEND (extend the safety and efficacy of adalimumab through endoscopic healing), a placebo (PBO)-controlled, randomized trial of adalimumab (ADA) for mucosal healing, included adults with moderate-to-severe CD. Subsets of patients meeting specified Simplified Endoscopic Score for CD (SES-CD) inclusion criteria, according to site or central reading, and baseline stool frequency (SF) and/or abdominal pain score (AP) thresholds were evaluated. Various endpoint definitions based on the Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI), its SF and AP components, SES-CD, and composite endpoints were compared between treatment groups. Results: Increased stringency of Week 12 clinical endpoints compared to CDAI<150 to SF≤3.0/1.5&AP≤1.0 reduced PBO response rates by ≥12% and increased treatment effects by ≤10%. Amending the SES-CD endpoint from ≤4 to ≤2 reduced the treatment effect from 24% to 8%. Composite endpoints further diminished response rates and effect sizes. Site-based evaluation was associated with lower remission rates versus central reading in the PBO group and, thus, greater ADA-related treatment effects. Conclusions: This analysis is the first to demonstrate that increasing the stringency of clinical and endoscopic endpoint definitions in CD trials, especially lowering SF or SES-CD definitions, reduces the ability to detect treatment-related change in CD activity; focus on endpoints that reflect clinical change is warranted.
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 | 0.215 | 0.181 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".