Early Combined Immunosuppression May Be More Effective for Reducing Complications in Isolated Colonic- vs Ileal-Dominant Crohn Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We assessed whether differential efficacy of early combined immunosuppression (ECI) in comparison with conventional management (CM) is present in patients with Crohn disease (CD) according to disease location. METHODS: In this posthoc analysis of the Randomized Evaluation of an Algorithm for Crohn's Treatment trial, the effect of ECI vs CM modified by disease location (isolated-colonic vs ileal-dominant) in terms of time to first complication (hospitalization, surgery, or disease-related complications-presence of a new abscess, fistula, or stricture; serious worsening of disease activity; extraintestinal manifestations) was analyzed using a marginal Cox proportional hazard model to account for cluster randomization. Factors adjusted included practice size, country, and other covariates selected in a backward logistic regression analysis with the first composition as outcome and P < 0.10. RESULTS: Of the 1969 patients with CD, 435 had isolated colonic CD (ECI n = 257, CM n = 178) and 1534 had ileal CD (ECI n = 817, CM n = 717). Over 24 months there was a significant differential impact for ECI vs CM for reducing the risk of a CD-related complication between patients with colonic CD and ileal CD (colonic CD hazard ratio [HR] = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30-0.85 vs ileal CD HR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.57-1.10; P = 0.033). No difference was identified between ECI vs CM for reducing the risk of surgery (colonic HR = 0.52 vs ileal HR = 0.74; P = 0.468) or hospitalization (colonic HR = 0.77 vs ileal HR = 0.83; P = 0.806). CONCLUSIONS: In this posthoc analysis of the Randomized Evaluation of an Algorithm for Crohn's Treatment trial, symptom-based ECI was associated with greater efficacy for reducing the risk of CD-related complications in patients with colonic disease location relative to ileal disease location.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".