End of Induction Patient-reported Outcomes Predict Clinical Remission but Not Endoscopic Remission in Crohn’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: It is unclear whether early symptom improvement in Crohn's disease [CD] provides any prognostic information for patients long-term. This paper aims to investigate the relationship between early patient-reported outcomes [PROs] after completion of induction of infliximab, and their relationship with long-term clinical remission [CR] and endoscopic remission [ER]. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis [Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02096861] used data from 220 CD patients to evaluate the relationship of Weeks 6 and 14 PRO variables and Week 54 clinical remission (Crohn's Disease Activity Index [CDAI <150), PRO2 remission (mean score abdominal pain [AP] ≤1 and stool frequency [SF] ≤1.5), and endoscopic remission (Simple Endoscopic Score-CD [SES-CD <3). Multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for confounders were used to assess the relationships between post-induction PROs and outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Patients with moderate or severe AP after induction had reduced odds of achieving 1-year CR and PRO2 remission compared with those with mild AP (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for CR 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17-0.57, p = 0.0002). Similarly, patients with moderately to severely elevated SF after induction had reduced odds of 1-year CR and PRO2 remission compared with patients with less SF [aOR for CR 0.31, 95% CI 0.16-0.58, p = 0.0003]. No significant differences were found when comparing higher Weeks 6 or 14 PRO scores of AP and/or SF with lower PRO scores in the odds of achieving 1-year ER. CONCLUSIONS: Post-induction PROs of AP and SF strongly predict likelihood of 1-year CR but are not associated with 1-year ER. Clinical symptoms alone should not be relied upon when assessing response to therapies for CD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".