Recommendations for Standardizing Clinical Trial Design and Endoscopic Assessment in Postoperative Crohn’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The lack of standardized methods for clinical trial design and disease activity assessment has contributed to an absence of approved medical therapies for the prevention of postoperative Crohn's disease (CD). We developed recommendations for regulatory trial design for this indication and for endoscopic assessment of postoperative CD activity. METHODS: An international panel of 19 gastroenterologists was assembled. Modified Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles methodology was used to rate the appropriateness of 196 statements using a 9-point Likert scale in 2 rounds of voting. Results were reviewed and discussed between rounds. RESULTS: Inclusion of patients with a history of completely resected ileocolonic CD in regulatory clinical trials for the prevention of postoperative recurrence was appropriate. Given the absence of approved medical therapies, a placebo-controlled design with a primary end point of endoscopic remission at 52 weeks was appropriate for drug development for this indication; however, there was uncertainty regarding the appropriateness of a coprimary end point of symptomatic and endoscopic remission and the use of currently available patient-reported outcome measures. The modified Rutgeerts Score, endoscopic assessment of the anastomosis, and a minimum of 5cm of neoterminal ileum were also appropriate; although the appropriateness of other indices including the Simple Endoscopic Score for CD for endoscopic assessment of postoperative CD activity was uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: A framework for regulatory trial design for the prevention of postoperative CD recurrence and endoscopic assessment of disease activity has been developed. Research to empirically validate end points for these trials is needed.
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 | 0.748 | 0.755 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.054 | 0.043 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.009 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".