MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300176811 · doi:10.1177/2050640616663688

UEG Week 2016 Oral Presentations

2016· article· en· W4300176811 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueUnited European Gastroenterology Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal and GI Pathology
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public Health
FundersHealth and Medical Research FundGilead SciencesAstraZenecaBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction:The optimal therapeutic approach to ileocecal Crohn's disease (CD) remains unclear.Aims & Methods: The objective of this study was to compare infliximab with laparoscopic ileocecal resection in patients with thiopurine or steroid refractory recurrent CD of the terminal ileum, with respect to quality of life (QoL) and costs.A multicentre randomised controlled, open-label trial was performed in 33 centres in the Netherlands and the UK.Adult patients with CD of the terminal ileum who failed 4 3 months of thiopurine treatment or steroids without signs of a critical stricture were randomised to infliximab or laparoscopic ileocecal resection.Patients with a prior ileocecal resection, a diseased length 4 40 cm, abdominal abscesses or fluid collections or an American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score of III or IV were excluded.The primary endpoint was QoL measured by the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) at one year follow-up.Furthermore, the mean direct costs per individual patient were prospectively documented and analysed according to intention-to-treat until one year after start of treatment.Dutch Trial Registry NTR1150.Results: Between May 2008 and October 2015, 143 patients were randomised (32.9% male) with a median age of 27.0 years (interquartile range (IQR) 22.0-40.0).Eventually, 65 patients started with infliximab treatment and 70 patients were operated.On April 28th 2016, 96.5% of the patients have completed followup.At baseline, the mean difference (MD) in IBDQ score was 4.9 points in favour of the resection group.After correction for the baseline difference, the MD at one year follow-up was 5.8 points in favour of resection (95% confidence interval (CI) À4.7 to 16.3, p ¼ 0.28).The mean direct total costs per patient at one year were E14,589 in the infliximab group and E10,318 in the resection group (MD 04,270, 95% CI 01,325 -07,126, p ¼ 0.005).Infliximab was stopped in 21 patients (30.0%) due to intolerance or insufficient response, 13 of whom underwent an ileocecal resection after a median time of 27.0 weeks (IQR 11.0-33.5)after start of infliximab treatment.CD related serious adverse events in terms of Clavien Dindo IIIb complications occurred in three patients (4.1%) in the laparoscopic ileocecal resection group and in one patient allocated to infliximab eventually going for surgery.Three patients (4.1%) in the resection group were started on infliximab within one year.Readmissions (for flares or additional surgery or dilatation) during follow-up were comparable (21.4% of patients in the infliximab versus 17.8% in the resection group).Conclusion: QoL at one year was not significantly different between the laparoscopic ileocecal resection and infliximab group.Given the lower bound of the 95% CI, laparoscopic ileocecal resection can be considered a non-inferior alternative for infliximab treatment at significantly lower cost.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUnited European Gastroenterology JournalSame topicEsophageal and GI PathologyFrench-language works237,207