Early intervention with biologic therapy in Crohn´s disease: how early is early?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early biologic therapy within the first 18-24 months after diagnosis is associated with improved clinical outcomes in Crohn's disease [CD]. However, the definition of the best time to initiate biologic therapy remains unclear. We aimed to assess if there is an optimal timing for early biologic therapy initiation. METHODS: This was a multicentre retrospective cohort study including newly diagnosed CD patients who started anti-tumour necrosis factor [TNF] therapy within 24 months from diagnosis. The timing of initiation of biologic therapy was categorised as ≤6, 7-12, 13-18, and 19-24 months. The primary outcome was CD-related complications defined as a composite of progression of Montreal disease behaviour, CD-related hospitalisations, or CD-related intestinal surgeries. Secondary outcomes included clinical, laboratory, endoscopic, and transmural remission. RESULTS: We included 141 patients where 54%, 26%, 11%, and 9% started biologic therapy at ≤6, 7-12, 13-18, and 19-24 months after diagnosis, respectively. A total of 34 patients [24%] reached the primary outcome: 8% had progression of disease behaviour, 15% were hospitalised, and 9% required surgery. There was no difference in the time to a CD-related complication according to the time of initiation of biologic therapy within the first 24 months. Clinical, endoscopic, and transmural remission was achieved in 85%, 50%, and 29%, respectively, but no differences were found according to the time of initiation of biologic therapy. CONCLUSION: Starting anti-TNF therapy within the first 24 months after diagnosis was associated with a low rate of CD-related complications and high rates of clinical and endoscopic remission, although we found no differences with earlier initiation within this window of opportunity.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".