Bibliographic record
Abstract
Symptoms of active Crohn's disease may respond to one or more of a number of classes of drug therapies. These include systemic glucocorticoids, budesonide, sulphasalazine, mesalazine (5-aminosalicylates), immunosuppressive agents and antibiotics. More recently, a chimeric mouse-human antibody to tumour necrosis factor (infliximab) has been shown to induce clinical remission and endoscopic improvement in patients with moderately active Crohn's disease refractory to other therapies. Despite this wide range of existing therapies and the potential of emerging biological therapies, recurrent Crohn's disease continues to be a major impediment to the fulfilment of a normal lifestyle and optimal quality of life for patients with Crohn's disease. Many drugs known to be effective for the treatment of active disease have been tried as maintenance therapy to prevent disease relapse or recurrence following medical or surgical therapy. The available evidence suggests that most of these drugs are not as useful in maintaining remission as they are in inducing it. Systemic glucocorticoids, budesonide, mesalazine (5-aminosalicylates), sulphasalazine and antibiotics are all associated with either marginal therapeutic gain in the setting of maintenance therapy or unacceptable long term toxicity. The immunosuppressive agents azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine and methotrexate have been shown to have a beneficial effect in maintaining remission and may be helpful as steroid-sparing agents. Repeated infusions of antitumour necrosis factor antibody maintain the improvements observed after one or two initial infusions. The relative long term safety, efficacy and cost effectiveness of the various choices of maintenance therapy remain to be determined.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".