Infliximab Induces and Maintains Mucosal Healing in Ulcerative Colitis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: ACT 1 & 2 evaluated the safety and efficacy of IFX for UC. Data were pooled to determine the effect of IFX on mucosal healing. Methods: 728 pts with active UC despite corticosteroids/AZA/6-MP and/or aminosalicylates (ACT 2 only) with endoscopic evidence of moderate/severe UC (endoscopy score≥2) and a total Mayo score of 6–12 inclusive, were randomized to PBO, IFX 5 or 10 mg/kg at wks 0, 2, 6 and q8 wks. Mucosal healing was defined as endoscopy subscore of 0 or 1. Results: More IFX 5- (61.2%) and 10 mg/kg (60.3%) pts had mucosal healing at wk 8 vs PBO (32.4%, both p < 0.001). At wk 30, 48.3% and 52.9% of IFX 5- and 10 mg/kg pts, respectively, had mucosal healing vs 27.5% of PBO (both p < 0.001). At endoscopy at wk 8, more pts receiving IFX 5- (25.2%) and 10 mg/kg (24.4%) had no evidence of active colitis (endoscopic score of 0) vs PBO (8.2%, p < 0.001). At wk 30, 27.7% and 30.6% of IFX 5- and 10 mg/kg treated pts, respectively, were free of evidence of active colitis vs. 9.4% of PBO (both p < 0.001). Proportion of pts in clinical remission was similar for the IFX at wks 8 and 30 (range, 29.8% to 36.4% vs 10.2% to 13.1%; PBO; p < 0.001 all comparisons). Proportion of IFX-treated pts in clinical remission at wk 30 was 4 fold greater for pts with mucosal healing at wk 8 (48.3%) vs pts without mucosal healing at wk 8 (9.5%). Conclusions: IFX is effective in inducing mucosal healing and remission in UC pts. Clinical remission at wk 30 occurred 4 times as often for pts with mucosal healing at wk 8.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".