MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Fecal Lactoferrin (fLac) and Calprotectin (fCal) as Surrogate Markers of Mucosal Healing: Post-hoc Analysis from the PURSUIT SC Induction Study

2015· article· en· W2979266702 on OpenAlexaff
Walter Reinisch, William J. Sandborn, Brian Feagan, Paul Rutgeerts, Peter G. Gibson, Judith Collins, Dino Tarabar, Zbigniew Hebzda, Jean–Frédéric Colombel, Colleen Marano, Richard Strauß, Jewel Johanns, Hongyan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineGastroenterologyPost-hoc analysisSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Previously we reported greater improvement in both fLac&fCal levels in UC pts who showed clinical response&endoscopic healing in PURSUIT SC induction golimumab(GLM)study1. These post-hoc analyses assessed association of fecal inflammatory markers, fLac&fCal, with Mayo endoscopy subscores using data from this study. Methods: The Ph3 portion of PURSUIT-SC was a multicenter, rand, PBO-controlled dble-blind study to evaluate safety&efficacy of induction therapy with SC GLM. Pts with Mayo scores of 6-12 inclusive, including endoscopic subscore >2 were rand to PBO/PBO, GLM 200mg/100mg, or GLM 400mg/ 200mg at Wks 0&2. Mucosal healing was assessed at Wk6 using Mayo endoscopy subscore. Stool samples were collected for fLac& fCal Wk0 thru Wk6. Assays for fLac&fCal concentrations were performed using validated methods. The area under a ROC curve(AUC)assessed the association of baseline&Wk6 fLac&fCal with Mayo endoscopy subscores of 0(defining normal or inactive disease)& subscores of 0 or 1(defining endoscopic healing in this study)at Wk6. Various cut offs of fLac&fCal concentrations were explored to determine balance of sensitivity&specificity for endoscopy subscores of 0 or 0 or 1. Results: Mayo endoscopy subscores of 0 or 1 were associated with lowest concentrations of fLac&fCal(Table). Baseline fLac&fCal were poor predictors for endoscopic healing at Wk6(AUCs< 0.63). Area under ROC curve analysis showed fLac&fCal at Wk6 are fair surrogate markers for normal/inactive endoscopic disease activity(endoscopy subscore of 0)at Wk6 with AUCs of 0.77&0.79, resp. Similar AUCs were observed for endoscopy subscores of 0 or 1. Cutoffs of fLac < 50 μg/ml & fCal < 250mg/kg at Wk6 offered reasonable sensitivity&specificity(fLac 0.74, 0.67 & fCal 0.79, 0.70)for normal/inactive endoscopic disease activity at Wk6. In contrast, cutoffs of fLac < 100μg/ml & fCal < 500mg/kg at Wk6 offered similarly reasonable sensitivity&specificity(fLac 0.73, 0.63 & fCal 0.74, 0.64)for endoscopy subscores of 0 or 1. Conclusion: At Wk6, Mayo endoscopy subscores were positively associated with levels of fLac&fCal. Cut-offs of fLac < 50μg/ml & fCal < 250mg/kg at Wk6 showed reasonable sensitivity&specificity for normal/endoscopic disease activity. Overall these data suggest that fecal inflammatory marker levels might be useful surrogates for endoscopic improvement.Table 1: Fecal Inflammatory Marker Concentrations and Mayo Endoscopy Subscores at Week 6

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicInfant Nutrition and Health→French-language works237,207→