Association Between Proposed Definitions of Clinical Remission/Response and Well-Being in Patients With Crohn’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patient-reported outcomes are recommended endpoints in Crohn's disease [CD] trials. The association between patient-reported general well-being relative to symptoms of diarrhoea and abdominal pain [AP] in patients with moderate to severe CD was explored. METHODS: Patients from three randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind adalimumab or upadacitinib studies with average daily very soft/liquid stool frequency [SF] ≥4 and/or AP score ≥2 at baseline were included. Using electronic diaries, patients reported general well-being [seven-point Likert scale; 1 = worst; 7 = best] in item 10 of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire [IBDQ]. Changes in well-being and clinical outcomes of SF and AP from baseline to week 12 or 16, and the relationship between well-being and clinical outcomes were evaluated using cumulative distribution function and probability density function curves. RESULTS: In total, 858 patients with CD were included [adalimumab, n = 695; upadacitinib, n = 163]. Patients who achieved clinical remission [SF ≤2.8, AP score ≤1.0, neither worse than baseline] were more likely than those not in clinical remission to report IBDQ item 10 response in the 6-7 group category but not IBDQ categories ≤5. Higher IBDQ score for item 10 [6-7] was associated with lower SF and AP score. Greater point increases in IBDQ item 10 were associated with a greater percentage decrease in clinical parameters; a ≥25-30% decrease in SF or AP was associated with a ≥1-point improvement in IBDQ. CONCLUSIONS: An association between improvements in patient-reported general well-being and clinical remission/response was observed using outcomes of SF and AP, supporting the clinical remission/response endpoint definitions used in clinical studies of CD. Clinical Trial Registrations [ClinicalTrials.gov]: NCT00077779 [CHARM]; NCT00348283 [EXTEND]; NCT02365649 [CELEST].
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 | 0.021 | 0.030 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".