Use of Faecal Transplantation with a Novel Diet for Mild to Moderate Active Ulcerative Colitis: The CRAFT UC Randomised Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether integration of novel diets for donors and patients, in addition to faecal transplantation [FT], could increase FT remission rate in refractory ulcerative colitis [UC]. METHODS: This was a blinded, randomised, controlled trial in adults with active UC, defined by a simple clinical colitis activity index [SCCAI] of ≥5 and ≤11 and endoscopic Mayo score 2-3, refractory to medication. Group 1 received free diet and single donor standard FT by colonoscopy on Day 1and rectal enemas on Days 2 and 14 without dietary conditioning of the donor. Group 2 received FT as above but with dietary pre-conditioning of the donor for 14 days and a UC Exclusion Diet [UCED] for the patients. Group 3 received the UCED alone. The primary endpoint was Week 8 clinical steroid-free remission, defined as SCCAI <3. RESULTS: Of 96 planned patients, 62 were enrolled. Remission Week 8 Group 1 was 2/17 [11.8%], Group 2 was 4/19 [21.1%], Group 3 was 6/15 [40%] [non-significant]. Endoscopic remission Group 1 was 2/17 [12%], Group 2 was 3/19 [16%], Group 3 was 4/15 [27%] [Group 1 vs 3 p = 0.38]. Mucosal healing [Mayo 0] was achieved only in Group 3 [3/15, 20%] vs 0/36 FT patients [p = 0.022]. Exacerbation of disease occurred in 3/17 [17.6%] of Group 1, 4/19 [21.1%] of Group 2, and 1/15 [6.7%] of Group 3 [Group 2 vs 3, p = 0.35]. CONCLUSIONS: UCED alone appeared to achieve higher clinical remission and mucosal healing than single donor FT with or without diet. The study was stopped for futility by a safety monitoring board.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".