MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385619005 · doi:10.1093/ibd/izad159

Disease Clearance as a New Outcome in Ulcerative Colitis: a Systematic Review and Expert Consensus

2023· review· en· W4385619005 on OpenAlexaff
Ferdinando D’Amico, Fernando Magro, Britta Siegmund, Taku Kobayashi, Paulo Gustavo Kotze, Virginia Solitano, Bénédicte Caron, Sameer Al Awadhi, Ailsa Hart, Vipul Jairath, Axel Dignaß, Laurent Peyrin‐Biroulet, Silvio Danese

Bibliographic record

VenueInflammatory Bowel Diseases · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersGenentechNorgineMedacEisaiMitsubishi Tanabe Pharma CorporationCelltrionAstellas PharmaMylanBiogenCelgeneFalk FoundationTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesEA Pharma Co., Ltd.Gilead SciencesGlaxoSmithKlineAmgenKyorin PharmaceuticalPfizerEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsUlcerative colitisMedicineDiseaseInflammatory bowel diseaseClinical trialIntensive care medicineSystematic reviewDelphi methodMEDLINEInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of disease clearance has been proposed as a potential target in ulcerative colitis (UC). We conducted a systematic review to investigate the role of disease clearance, defined as a composite outcome including simultaneous clinical, endoscopic, and histologic remission of disease in the management of patients with UC. Based on the literature data, statements regarding disease clearance were developed and voted on by the members of the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IOIBD) according to a Delphi methodology. A definition of disease clearance was proposed to standardize its use in clinical practice and clinical trials and to provide practical recommendations for its implementation as a therapeutic target in 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 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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.296 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations47
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInflammatory Bowel DiseasesSame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207