Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2017, the CADTH Canadian Drug Expert Committee recommended that budesonide extended release (with multi-matrix system) not be reimbursed for the induction of remission in patients with active mild to moderate ulcerative colitis based on limitations in the evidence at that time. The limited primary clinical evidence (i.e., 1 randomized controlled trial) published since the literature searches conducted for the previous CADTH Reimbursement Review corroborates the clinical findings of that report. The evidence demonstrates that budesonide extended release is more effective for inducing remission in patients with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis compared to placebo. No new clinical evidence was identified describing head-to-head comparisons of budesonide extended release with active therapies. Indirect comparative evidence between budesonide extended release and other active therapies suggests minimal or no difference in remission, clinical response, or adverse events. Cost-effectiveness evidence from 1 study conducted in the Netherlands indicates that budesonide extended release is a more effective and less costly second-line therapy versus aggregated comparators for patients with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. Evidence-based recommendations support the use of budesonide extended release for patients with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis who have not responded to 5-ASAs. No clinical or cost-effectiveness evidence or evidence-based recommendations were found describing the use of budesonide extended release in patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".