MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041952831 · doi:10.5217/ir.2019.09176

Colitis and Crohn’s Foundation (India) consensus statements on use of 5-aminosalicylic acid in inflammatory bowel disease

2020· review· en· W3041952831 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ajit Sood, Vineet Ahuja, Vandana Midha, Saroj Kant Sinha, C. Ganesh Pai, Saurabh Kedia, Varun Mehta, Sawan Bopanna, Philip Abraham, Rupa Banerjee, Shobna Bhatia, Karmabir Chakravartty, Sunil Dadhich, Devendra Desai, Manisha Dwivedi, Bhabhadev Goswami, Kirandeep Kaur, Rajeev Khosla, Ajay Kumar, Ramit Mahajan, S P Misra, Kiran Peddi, Shivaram Prasad Singh, Arshdeep Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueIntestinal Research · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMax Rady College of Medicine, University of ManitobaIrving Medical Center, Columbia University
KeywordsMedicineInflammatory bowel diseaseUlcerative colitisAminosalicylic acidObservational studyRandomized controlled trialCrohn's diseaseInternal medicineDiseaseExpert opinionGastroenterologyIntensive care medicineMesalazine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite several recent advances in therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) therapy has retained its place especially in ulcerative colitis. This consensus on 5-ASA is obtained through a modified Delphi process, and includes guiding statements and recommendations based on literature evidence (randomized trials, and observational studies), clinical practice, and expert opinion on use of 5-ASA in IBD by Indian gastroenterologists. The aim is to aid practitioners in selecting appropriate treatment strategies and facilitate optimal use of 5-ASA in patients with IBD.

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)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntestinal ResearchSame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207