End of induction patient reported outcomes predict clinical remission and endoscopic improvement with vedolizumab and adalimumab in ulcerative colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly emphasized as endpoints in clinical trials of ulcerative colitis (UC). However, the prognostic value of early improvement in PROs for long-term outcomes remains unclear.Methods This was a post-hoc analysis of 611 vedolizumab-treated or adalimumab-treated patients in the VARSITY trial (Clinicaltrial.gov: NCT02497469). Stool frequency (SF) and rectal bleeding score (RBS) as reported in the Mayo score at post-induction (week 6 and 14) was assessed for their association with one-year endoscopic improvement (EI), defined as Mayo endoscopic subscore <2; histo-endoscopic mucosal improvement (HEMI), defined as EI and Geboes highest grade <3.2, clinical remission (CR), defined as total Mayo score ≤2; and PRO-2 remission, defined as RBS of 0 and SF ≤1. Multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for confounders assessed the relationships between post-induction PROs and outcomes of interest at one-year.Results Patients with severe SF at week 6 were significantly less likely to achieve one-year EI compared to those with non-severe SF [aOR 0.40 (95% CI: 0.24–0.68), p < .001]. Absence of rectal bleeding at week 6 was associated with greater odds of achieving EI at one-year [aOR 2.21 (95% CI: 1.58–3.09), p < .001]. These findings were consistent across comparisons at week 14. Similar findings were observed for the outcomes of one-year HEMI, CR and PRO-2 remission. No difference was observed between the modified partial Mayo score and modified PRO-2 score.Conclusions Post-induction PROs strongly predict the odds of CR and EI in UC and simplified evaluations can be used to assess early response to UC therapies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".