Use of Infliximab (Remicade) for IBD Within a Patient Support Program: Positive Perception of I.V. Infusions From Patientʼs Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In Canada, IBD patients treated with infliximab (IFX) are primarily managed through a nationwide patient support program (PSP) where a case coordinator manages treatment between the patient, physician and a network of infusion clinics. The aim of this study was to assess patients' experience of IFX therapy administered in this PSP. Methods: In this nationwide, cross-sectional survey, patients currently receiving IFX within the PSP were given an information brochure to access a web-based survey (May 5-July 18, 2014) of demographic & disease characteristics, respondents' lifestyle & health ratings, and their perception of IV infusions before and after initiating therapy. The analysis was exploratory and descriptive; data collected was a selfreported ordinal scale (low to high, 1 - 10) with median (IQR) and mean (range) reported. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for assessment of statistically significant differences in responses over time. Results: :Of 10,000 brochures distributed in 192 clinics, there were 1,762 respondents (18%); >75% were treated for IBD. 49% were males, and median age was 41 (30-53) and 98% treated with IFX. 62% of respondents were employed, 8% unemployed, 11% retired, 9% on disability, 9% were students. 57% of respondents reported receiving therapy for >2 yrs, 18% for 1-2 yrs and 25% Conclusion: While this study is subject to a strong selection bias, we found that these patients lead busy/active lifestyles, see the time commitment of IV treatment as worthwhile, have a positive experience at the clinics and report significant improvements in their perception of IV infusion. Further studies on this topic are 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".