The use of 5‐aminosalicylate for patients with Crohn’s disease in a prospective European inception cohort with 5 years follow‐up – an Epi‐IBD study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The lack of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of 5-aminosalicylate in patients with Crohn's disease is in sharp contrast to its widespread use in clinical practice. AIMS: The aim of the study was to investigate the use of 5-aminosalicylate in patients with Crohn's disease as well as the disease course of a subgroup of patients who were treated with 5-aminosalicylate as maintenance monotherapy during the first year of disease. METHODS: In a European community-based inception cohort, 488 patients with Crohn's disease were followed from the time of their diagnosis. Information on clinical data, demographics, disease activity, medical therapy and rates of surgery, cancers and deaths was collected prospectively. Patient management was left to the discretion of the treating gastroenterologists. RESULTS: Overall, 292 (60%) patients with Crohn's disease received 5-aminosalicylate period during follow-up for a median duration of 28 months (interquartile range 6-60). Of these, 78 (16%) patients received 5-aminosalicylate monotherapy during the first year following diagnosis. Patients who received monotherapy with 5-aminosalicylate experienced a mild disease course with only nine (12%) who required hospitalization, surgery, or developed stricturing or penetrating disease, and most never needed more intensive therapy. The remaining 214 patients were treated with 5-aminosalicylate as the first maintenance drug although most eventually needed to step up to other treatments including immunomodulators (75 (35%)), biological therapy (49 (23%)) or surgery (38 (18%)). CONCLUSION: In this European community-based inception cohort of unselected Crohn's disease patients, 5-aminosalicylate was commonly used. A substantial group of these patients experienced a quiescent disease course without need of additional treatment during follow-up. Therefore, despite the controversy regarding the efficacy of 5-aminosalicylate in Crohn's disease, its use seems to result in a satisfying disease course for both patients and physicians.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".