MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Endoscopic Healing in Induction and Maintenance with Ustekinumab in the Phase 3 UNITI Crohnʼs Disease Program: 2016 ACG Presidential Poster Award

2016· article· en· W2979064110 on OpenAlexaff
William J. Sandborn, C Gasink, Daphne Chan, Yinghua Lang, Paul Pollack, Stephen B. Hanauer, Douglas C. Wolf, Doug Jacobstein, Jewel Johanns, Philippe Szapary, Brian Feagan, Paul Rutgeerts

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMaintenance therapyRandomized controlled trialPopulationClinical endpointUstekinumabMaintenance doseSurgeryInternal medicineGastroenterologyDiseaseChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: To evaluate endoscopic healing in the ustekinumab(UST) induction (UNITI-1&2)& maintenance (IM-UNITI) Phase 3 studies. Methods: Substudy patients (pts) had colonoscopies at baseline (˜UNITI Wk0), then 8 & 52 weeks later (IM-UNITI Wk44). A single central reader blindly scored all video endoscopies for ulcerations & simplifi ed endoscopic activity score for CD (SES-CD). At induction Wk0, pts received a single IV dose (UST 130mg, UST ˜6mg/kg, or PBO). At maintenance Wk0 (i.e. induction Wk8), pts with clinical response [CR] (CDAI decrease ≥100) to IV UST induction were re-randomized to subcutaneous (SC) PBO or UST 90mg (q12w or q8w) [Primary randomized maintenance population]. For the non-randomized maintenance groups: (1)UST induction non-responders received SC UST 90mg, then continued SC UST 90mg q8w if in CR 8wks later; (2)PBO induction nonresponders received UST IV 130mg, then continued SC UST 90mg q12w if in CR after 8wks; (3)PBO induction responders received PBO throughout. Pts with SES-CD ≥3 (i.e. ulceration in ≥1 segment) at induction Wk0 were eligible for analysis. Primary endpoint was change in SES-CD at induction Wk8 (Integrated UST group [induction studies & doses combined] vs PBO). Efficacy at maintenance Wk44 was evaluated in the primary randomized maintenance population & the post-hoc pooled maintenance population (randomized & nonrandomized populations combined).Table 1a: Induction Week 8 (UNITI-1&2)Table 1b: Maintenance Week 44 (IM-MUNITI)Results: UST induced significantly greater reduction in SES-CD at Wk8 vs PBO. Results were similar by induction study & UST dose. Other induction endoscopic endpoints also consistently favored UST vs PBO (Table 1a). In the primary randomized maintenance population at maintenance Wk44, trends for greater efficacy were seen with UST vs. PBO maintenance (especially UST 90mg q8w) but small sample sizes (UST n=46; PBO n=24) precluded definitive conclusions. In the larger post-hoc pooled maintenance population (Table 1b), consistent trends supporting UST maintenance, again especially UST 90mg q8w, were observed across endoscopic endpoints at Wk44. Conclusion: The endoscopy substudy primary endpoint was met; one IV UST dose induced significantly greater reduction in endoscopic disease activity vs PBO, even at a relatively early Wk8 evaluation. Greater proportions of pts receiving UST maintenance, especially UST 90mg q8w, achieved maintenance endoscopic endpoints vs PBO. Together, these data support efficacy of UST in inducing & maintaining endoscopic healing of the mucosa in CD.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→