MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

709 Optimizing the Definition of Clinical Response Using the Modified Mayo Score: An Analysis of a Phase 2 Study With Mirikizumab in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis

2019· article· en· W2979747139 on OpenAlexaff
Vipul Jairath, William J. Sandborn, Yan Dong, April N. Naegeli, Jay Tuttle, M. Durante, Vipin Arora, Geert D’Haens

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUlcerative colitisInternal medicineClinical trialSurrogate endpointClinical endpointGastroenterologyPost-hoc analysisPhases of clinical researchCut-pointSurgeryDiseaseStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The 12-point Mayo Clinic Score (MCS), composed of four domains, has traditionally been used in defining regulatory endpoints for clinical remission in ulcerative colitis (UC) clinical trials. Clinical response has been defined as a reduction in MCS ≥3 points and ≥30 percent decrease from baseline (BL). Recent guidance from the FDA and EMA recommend use of the 9-point Mayo Score (Modified MCS; MMS) and its components for clinical trial endpoints, which excludes the physician's global assessment (PGA) subscore. 1,2 AMAC was a phase 2 randomized trial clinical trial of mirikizumab (miri), a p19-directed IL-23 antibody, in patients with moderate to severely active UC, which defined clinical response as decrease in the MMS of ≥2 points and ≥35% decrease from BL, and a decrease of ≥1 point in the rectal bleeding (RB) subscore from BL, or a RB score of 0 or 1. We performed a post-hoc analysis of AMAC data to demonstrate that given the MMS, a 30% reduction, along with RB reductions, is appropriate to capture improvement. METHODS: Contingency table analysis was used to evaluate MCS responders and non-responders by ≥30% and ≥35% MMS. Sensitivity and specificity were used to evaluate a representative percent improvement in MMS clinical response between MCS defined responder and non-responders. RESULTS: Using the MMS, removal of the PGA does not change the expected percentage difference from BL for responders compared to MCS when using the 30% clinical response definition. With total MCS as the anchor variable, the accurate classification rate with a ≥30% decrease in MMS is (124 + 110)/249 = 93.9%, and (127 + 104)/249 = 92.8% when using the ≥35% decrease (Table 1). The high classification rates show a very strong consistency between MMS and MCS at both cutoffs; however, sensitivity and specificity appears to be more balanced at a ≥30% decrease cutoff, with the two being close to equal (Figure 1). CONCLUSION: The more appropriate definition for identifying patients with UC in clinical response based on the MMS uses the ≥30% decrease from BL cutoff. This definition, along with a decrease of ≥2 points in the MMS from BL and ≥1 point in the RB subscore or a RB score of 0 or 1, is consistent with the prior definition using the total MCS.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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