Lack of Benefit for Early Escalation to Advanced Therapies in Ulcerative Colitis: Critical Appraisal of Current Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although ulcerative colitis [UC] shares many common pathways and therapeutic options with Crohn's disease [CD], CD patients are four times more likely to undergo surgery 10 years into their disease in the biological era and are more likely to have extraintestinal manifestations than UC patients. Early treatment in CD has been demonstrated to modify the natural history of the disease and potentially delay surgery. Previous reviews on this topic have borrowed their evidence from CD to make UC-specific recommendations. This review highlights the emergence of UC-specific data from larger cohort studies and a comprehensive individual patient data systemic review and meta-analysis to critically appraise evidence on the utility of early escalation to advanced therapies with respect to short-, medium-, and long-term outcomes. In UC, the utility of the early escalation concept for the purposes of changing the natural history, including reducing colectomy and hospitalizations, is not supported by the available data. Data on targeting clinical, biochemical, endoscopic, and histological outcomes are needed to demonstrate that they are meaningful with regard to achieving reductions in hospitalization and surgery, improving quality of life, and minimizing disability. Analyses of different populations of UC patients, such as those with 'relapsing & remitting' disease or with severe or complicated disease course, are urgently needed. The costs and risk/benefit profile of some of the newer advanced therapies should be carefully considered. In this clinical landscape, it appears premature to advocate an indiscriminate 'one size fits all' approach to escalating to advanced therapies early during the course of UC.
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 | 0.032 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".