P506. Predictors of Health-related Quality of Life in Asian Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Psychological, Clinical and Demographic factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
cost saving.[2] Inflectra was introduced in the department for IBD patients requiring commencement of anti-TNF treatment in January 2014.This is the first discription of the use of biosimilars in an IBD population in the Western World.Methods: In this descriptive study, 14 consecutive patients who were commenced on Inflectra from January to July 2014 are compared to 22 consecutive patients commenced on Infliximab (Remicade) from Dec 2011 to Dec 2013.A direct comparison and statistical analysis was performed investigating surgery rates, readmission rates, use of steroids, disease activity and CRP trends.Results: Demographics of both patient cohorts were comparable.29% of patients in Inflectra group required surgery versus 0% in the Inflixiamb group (p= 0.02).80% of the inflectra group required hospital readmission versus 5% of the infliximab (remicade) group.(p=0.00004).60% of patients in the Inflectra group needed steroid augmentation of standard steroid tapering protocol with 50% requiring multiple increases in steroid dose versus 8% of patients in the Infliximab (p-value = 0.0007).Over the course of 8 weeks, 93% of patients in the Inflectra group had an increase in CRP with 7% remaining unchanged whereas 100% of patients in the infliximab group had a decrease in CRP (p=<0.001).Conclusions: Our results suggest that biosimilars may not be as efficacious as the reference medicine.The results found reflect the ECCO statement position that the use of most biosimilars in IBD will require testing in this particular patient population [3] and cannot be extrapolated from other disease populations."Rates of surgery in Infliximab and Inflectra groups" "CRP trends in Infliximab, Inflectra and Inflectra surgical patients groups."
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".