Delayed-release mesalamine significantly improves quality of life in patients with mildly and moderately active UC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goals of therapy for ulcerative colitis (UC) are aimed at treating active disease and preventing relapse in order to provide optimal quality of life (QoL). Mesalamine delayed-release tablets (Asacol) are indicated for the treatment of mildly and moderately active UC and for the maintenance of remission. Improved QoL with Asacol has not been previously evaluated. Data were combined from two 6-week, multi-center, randomized, doubleblind, active-controlled treatment studies of similar design (ASCEND I & II) in patients with mildly and moderately active UC. Patients received oral Asacol 2.4 g/day in the active control arm (the indicated dose for treatment). QoL was assessed using the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) at baseline, 3 and 6 weeks. The change in IBDQ score from baseline in each group was assessed using a paired t-test. A total of 687 patients were randomized in the two studies, of which 349 received Asacol 2.4 g/day. The mean age was 43.1 years, 53.3% were female, and mean baseline IBDQ score was 143. Treatment with Asacol provided a significant improvement in the overall IBDQ scores at 3 weeks and 6 weeks (Figure). In addition, all IBDQ subscores (bowel symptoms, systemic symptoms, emotional health, and social function) were significantly improved at both 3 weeks and 6 weeks, p<0.0001 versus baseline. Asacol 2.4 g/day was well-tolerated, with adverse events and laboratory findings consistent with those described in previous trials and the current prescribing information. Improvement in Total IBDQ Score Treatment with Asacol significantly improves QoL as early as 3 weeks. Furthermore, the total IBDQ score and all four IBDQ subscores (bowel symptoms, systemic symptoms, emotional health, and social function) were significantly improved at both 3 and 6 weeks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".