MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406705233 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjae190.0043

DOP004 Proactive fecal calprotectin testing in ulcerative colitis: Initial results of the PROMOTE UC study

2025· article· en· W4406705233 on OpenAlexaffabout
Greg Rosenfeld, N Narula, Yvette Leung, Waqqas Afif, Astrid‐Jane Williams, Vivian Huang, Harminder Singh, Jeffrey D. McCurdy, Vipul Jairath, Minh Lam, Dustin Loomes, Petros Zezos, Michael J. Stewart, Chaoran Ma, Mark J. Ropeleski, Maria Ancheta-Schmit, P Tavakoli, R Khanna, James D. Lewis, Jean–Frédéric Colombel, Brian Bressler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityThunder Bay Regional Health Sciences CentreIsland HealthBurnaby HospitalUniversity of OttawaWestern UniversityUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of CalgaryMcGill UniversityQueen's UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCalprotectinUlcerative colitisFecesGastroenterologyInternal medicineColitisInflammatory bowel diseaseDiseaseMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Fecal calprotectin (FC) is a biomarker of mucosal inflammation widely used in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Given the convenience of home-based FC testing, we hypothesized that intensive, proactive FC monitoring would prevent symptomatic ulcerative colitis (UC) flares by detecting elevated FC levels prior to symptom onset and allowing clinicians to optimize therapy. Methods This prospective, multicenter, randomized, observational clinical trial evaluated intensive home-based, FC testing (IBDoc, Bühlmann Laboratories) versus usual care in adults with UC in clinical remission, defined as a modified partial Mayo score (mpMayo) ≤2 with no rectal bleeding. Patients in the intervention arm used the home testing kit every 2 months for 18 months or until symptomatic flare. The decision to modify therapy based on an elevated FC result was left to the discretion of the attending physician. Patients in the control group were followed according to usual care for 18 months or until symptomatic flare. Clinical data were collected at baseline and every 6 months. The primary endpoint was the time to symptomatic flare, defined as an increase in mpMayo ≥2 points from baseline or a rectal bleeding score ≥1. Results A total of 584 patients were followed at 14 sites in Canada and Australia until symptomatic flare or end of study. Demographics were similar between the control (n=293) and intervention arms (n=291), including mean age (41.9 vs 41.9 years), sex (46.8% vs 49.1% male), disease duration (1.61 vs 1.44 years), and mean mpMayo (0.39 vs 0.40) (Table). At study end, the flare rate of 30.9% in the intervention arm with proactive monitoring was slightly lower than the flare rate of 32.8% in the control arm (median follow-up 549 and 562 days, respectively). Overall, HR for flare in the intervention vs control arm was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.76, 1.34; p=0.96) (Figure). Risk for flare was also similar when analyzed by disease extent (proctitis: 1.13 [0.60, 2.14, p=0.71]; left-sided disease: 0.99 [0.61, 1.58, p=0.95]; pancolitis: 0.96 [0.60, 1.53, p=0.86]) or biologic use (biologics: 1.29 [0.86, 1.95, p=0.22], non-biologics: 0.78 [0.52, 1.18, p=0.24]) at baseline. Conclusion In this large, prospective clinical trial, approximately one-third of patients with UC in clinical remission developed a symptomatic flare within 18 months. Longitudinal proactive FC monitoring was not associated with a reduction in clinical flares. Further study is needed to determine the utility of home-based FC testing in guiding the management 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→