P542. Care of women with gastrointestinal conditions during family planning and pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The biosimilar to infliximab, Remsima have been recently shown to be equivalent to infliximab in efficacy and safety in rheumatologic diseases.However, there are no data for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of Remsima in Korean patients with IBD.Methods: This was a retrospective multicenter study including IBD patients who received at least one Remsima infusion.Both anti-TNF naïve patients and patients who switch from Remicade or Humira to Remsima were included.Short-term clinical outcomes and adverse events of Remsima were evaluated.Results: A total of 55 Crohn's disease (CD) patients (23 anti-TNF naïve patients and 32 patients who switch to Remsima) and 51 ulcerative colitis (UC) patients (41 anti-TNF naïve patients and 10 patients who switch to Remsima) were included.In anti-TNF naïve CD patients, the rates of clinical response and remission were 91% and 78% at week 8.In anti-TNF naïve UC patients, the rates of clinical response, clinical remission, and mucosal healing were 87%, 31%, and 54% at week 8. Three patients (2.8%) discontinued Remsima because of an adverse event.The efficacy of Remsima was maintained in 86% of patients with CD and in 67% of patients with UC after switching from Remicade.Conclusions: Remsima showed an excellent short-term clinical response and a good safety in both moderate to severe CD and UC.Further prospective studies with long-term follow up are needed to confirm the efficacy of Remsima.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
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".