Systematic review: predictive biomarkers of therapeutic response in inflammatory bowel disease—personalised medicine in its infancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is characterised by substantial heterogeneity in treatment response. With an expanding number of therapeutic agents, identifying optimal treatment at the patient level remains a major challenge. AIM: To systematically review the available literature on predictive biomarkers of therapeutic response in IBD. METHODS: An electronic literature search was performed on 30 January 2018 using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Retrospective, prospective, uncontrolled and controlled studies reporting on biomarkers predicting therapeutic response in paediatric and adult IBD populations were eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the QUIPS tool. Due to anticipated heterogeneity and limited data, a qualitative, rather than quantitative, assessment was planned. RESULTS: Of the 10 638 citations identified, 92 articles met the inclusion criteria. Several potential DNA, mRNA and protein markers were evaluated as predictive biomarkers. Most studies focused on predicting response to anti-TNF agents. Substantial between-study heterogeneity was identified with respect to both the biomarkers studied and the definition of response. None of the included studies received a low risk of bias rating for all six domains. Currently, none of the biomarkers is sufficiently predictive for clinical use. CONCLUSIONS: The search for predictive biomarkers is still in its infancy and current evidence is limited. Future research efforts should take into account the high patient heterogeneity within prospective trials with objective response assessment. Predictive models will most likely comprise a combination of several molecular markers from integrated omics-levels and clinical characteristics.
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 | 0.015 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".