MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913873767 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjy222.032

OP35 Endoscopic and deep remission at 1 year prevents disease progression in early Crohn’s disease: long-term data from CALM

2019· article· en· W2913873767 on OpenAlexaff
Clara Yzet, Ryan C. Ungaro, Peter Bossuyt, Filip Baert, Thomas Vanasek, Geert D’Haens, V Joustra, Remo Panaccione, Gottfried Novacek, Alessandro Armuzzi, Oleksandr Golovchenko, O Prymak, Adrian Goldiș, Simon Travis, Xavier Hébuterne, Marc Ferrante, Gerhard Rogler, Mathurin Fuméry, Silvio Danese, Grażyna Rydzewska, Benjamin Pariente, Erik Hertervig, C Stanciu, JC Grimaud, M-M Diculescu, Laurent Peyrin‐Biroulet, David Laharie, John Wright, Fernando Gomollón, И. В. Губонина, Stefan Schreiber, Satoshi Motoya, Per M. Hellström, Jonas Halfvarson, J F Colombel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCrohn's diseaseHazard ratioConfidence intervalInternal medicineSurgeryProportional hazards modelAdverse effectFistulaAbscessDiseaseGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We aimed to describe the long-term impact of achieving endoscopic and deep remission among participants in the effect of tight control management on CD (CALM) trial. We analysed medical records from patients with follow-up data since end of CALM. Patients were stratified by outcomes in CALM at 1 year: clinical remission (Crohn’s disease activity index, CDAI <150), endoscopic remission (Crohn’s disease endoscopic index of severity, CDEIS <4 with no deep ulcerations), and deep remission (CDAI <150, CDEIS <4 with no deep ulcerations, and no steroids for ≥8 weeks). The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse outcomes reflecting CD progression: new internal fistula/abscess, stricture, perianal fistula/abscess, CD hospitalisation, or CD surgery since end of CALM. Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression methods were used to compare composite rates between patients who achieved or did not achieve remission at 1 year. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported, controlling for randomisation arm and baseline variables significant at p < 0.2 level. One hundred twenty-two patients with median age 29 years (IQR 22.5–37) and median disease duration 0.2 years (IQR 0.1–0.8) were included. Median follow-up time from end of CALM was 3.02 years (range 0.05–6.26 years). Fifty per cent were randomised to the tight control arm. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics in patients with follow-up data and those lost to follow-up with the exception of a slightly higher CDEIS score in patients lost to follow-up (14.6 vs. 12.9, p = 0.04). Thirty-four patients (27.9%) had a major adverse outcome during follow-up. Patients in clinical remission at 1 year did not have significantly lower rates of the composite endpoint (log-rank p = 0.15). Patients in endoscopic and deep remission at the end of CALM were significantly less likely to have a major adverse event over time (Figures 1 and 2). After adjusting for age, disease duration, prior surgery, prior stricture, and randomisation arm, endoscopic remission (aHR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20–0.96, p = 0.038) and deep remission (aHR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09–0.72, p = 0.01) were significantly associated with lower risk of major adverse events. Early CD patients who achieve endoscopic or deep remission after 1 year of intensive treatment are less likely to have disease progression over a median of 3 years. Abstract OP035 – Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier estimates of CD disease progression based on endoscopic remission at 1 year Abstract OP035 – Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier estimates of CD disease progression based on deep remission at 1 year.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crohn s and ColitisSame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207