Outcomes in Adult Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Trials: Assessment of Similarity Among Participants with Adolescent-onset and Adult-onset Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Most paediatric inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] studies are performed after medications are approved in adults, and the majority of participants in these studies are adolescents. We hypothesised that adolescent-onset IBD is not fundamentally different from adult-onset IBD. If this is correct, the value of delaying access to novel drugs in adolescents becomes questioned. METHODS: Data from 11 randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, adult Phases 2 and 3 trials of four biologics were analysed. Participants were categorised as having adolescent- or adult-onset disease [diagnosed 12 to <18, or ≥18 years]. Multivariable modelling explored the association between age at diagnosis and response to treatment, after adjustment for disease duration, extent, and severity at baseline. Data from dose arms were pooled to evaluate similarity of therapeutic response between adolescent- and adult-onset IBD within the same trial [not between doses or across trials]. Ratios of odds ratios [ORs] between the two groups were evaluated. RESULTS: Data from 6283 study participants (2575 with Crohn's disease [CD], 3708 with ulcerative colitis [UC]) were evaluated. Of 2575 study participants with CD, 325 were 12-<18 years old at diagnosis; 836 participants [32.4%] received placebo. Of 3708 participants with UC, 221 were 12-<18 years old at diagnosis; 1212 [33%] were receiving placebo. The majority of the ratios of ORs were within 2-fold, suggesting that responses in adolescent- and adult-onset participants are generally similar. CONCLUSION: Data presented lend support for extrapolating efficacy of biologics from adults to adolescents with IBD, which would facilitate earlier labelling and patient access.
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 | 0.269 | 0.389 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".