P355. What is treat-to-target of Crohn's Disease: the comparison of long-term outcome among patients with mucosal healing, deep remission and biological remission ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Treat-to-target aiming to improve long-term outcomes of Crohn's disease (CD) is receiving increasing attention.However, great controversy existed in the treatment goals to be achieved.We aimed to examine whether a more strict treatment target predicts a better outcome in CD. Methods:We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study of patients with CD by using a prospectively maintained IBD database (October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2013).The long-term outcomes of CD patients with complete MH were compared with those of patients with deep remission (DR,defined as the absence of mucosal ulceration and CD Activity Index scores less than 150) and biological remission(BR, defined as DR combined with negative surrogate markers of inflammation).The primary efficacy outcome was the proportions of CD-related intestinal surgery and hospitalization at the successive visits throughout follow-up.Results: A total of 195 patients who had MH detected at the scheduled endoscopic follow-up evaluation to assess MH constituted the study population.These 195 patients were then divided into three homogeneous arms according to the normalization of simultaneous CDAI and/ or hs-CRP: the DR group (referred to DR patients with elevated hs-CRP, n=53), the BR group (referred to DR patients with normalized hs-CRP, n=106) and the MH only group (referred to patients with a CDAI >150 at the detection of endoscopic remission, n=36).After a median follow-up period of 46.03 months (IQR, 28.15-67.93months), 25 patients had CD-related bowel surgery, 44 patients had CD-related hospitalizationshospitalized, and 53 patients experienced CR.Of 151 patients performed at least one follow-up colonoscopy after the initial colonoscopy, 96 patients experienced an ER.Overall there were significant longer CD-related hospitalizations-free survival (133.5 ± 17.1 vs. 68.6 ± 5.1 vs.86.3 ± 8.6 months, P =0.004), ER-free survival (33.38 ± 3.7 vs. 20.3 ± 3.2 vs.33.7 ± 5.8 months, P =0.015), and CR-free survival (109.38 ± 12.1 vs. 50.52± 6.5 vs.50.6 ± 9.3 months, P =0.006) of patients in the BR group than P356 Durable
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".