P201 Evaluation of the role of anti-TNF in stabilizing the progression of intestinal lesions in Crohn’s disease using the Lemann Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Lemann Index (LI) was developed to assess cumulative digestive tract damage in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD), independently of clinical and biological activity. Recently, therapeutic goals in CD have focused on achieving mucosal healing and deep remission rather than simple symptom control, thus requiring prevention of progression of intestinal damage. The aim of this study was to assess the influence of different treatments on the progression of structural damage, using the LI. Methods we retrospectively included all patients with CD, followed in our center during the period between January 2016 and January 2020. The LI was calculated from the first (LI1) and the last (LI2) clinical consultations. The evolution of (LI1-LI2) or Delta LI (DLI) was recorded. Results 112 patients with CD were collected, of which 53.6% were female. The mean age at diagnosis was 33.29 years [15–63]. Active smoking was found in 34 patients (30.4%). Regarding the localization of CD, it was ileal (L1 according to the Montreal classification), colonic (L2), and ileocolonic (L3) in respectively 16.1%, 42.9% and 41%. The disease phenotype was inflammatory (B1) in 60.7%, stricturing (B2) in 21.42%, and penetrating (B3) in 17.85%. The initial flare was judged to be severe in 33.9% of cases, moderate in 55.4% of cases and mild in 10.7% of cases, with a mean CDAI of 305.21 [115–493]. Regarding maintenance treatment, 51.8% of patients (n = 58) were on Azathioprine, 23.2% (n = 26) were on aminosalicylates, and 25% (n = 28) were on anti-TNF, including 42, 9% under combination therapy. The median follow-up was 36.82 ± 16.83 months, with no difference between the groups. During follow-up, the mean LI increased significantly from 3.34 [0.58–8.82] to 7.82 [0.62–32.6] in the azathioprine group (p = 0.0001), from 2.0 [0.58–6.52] to 3.91 [0.6–14.03] in the Aminosalicylates group (p = 0.001) and from 3.79 [1.05–8.42] to 10.01 [2.58–33.08] in the Anti-TNF group (p = 0.0001). The mean DLI was -4.48 for the Azathioprine group, -1.9 for the Salicylates group and -6.14 for the Anti-TNF group, with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.16). Conclusion In patients with CD, the LI tends to increase over time. In our series, the use of Anti-TNF α does not appear to be able to reduce the progression of intestinal lesions, compared to other therapies.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".