Clinical and endoscopic remission in patients with inflamatory bowel disease using aminosalicilates, systemic corticoesteroids and immunomodulators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A cross-sectional transversal research was conducted with the aim of determining clinical and endoscopic remission of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with the use of aminosalicylates, systemic corticosteroids and immunomodulators in patients attended at the Servicio de Gastroenterologia of the Hospital Central Universitario Dr. Antonio María Pineda, Barquisimeto, Lara state, during the period 2012-2020, using the Montreal, Mayo, CDEIS, Harvey-Bradshaw and Harvey-Bradshaw indices. The population consisted of 87 records from the clinical histories of patients who met the established criteria. The prevalence age was between 41 and 62 years; 65.5% were females. 44.9% of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) showed left colitis and 34.6% pancolitis. In Crohn’s disease (CD), 88.9% of patients showed an inflammatory pattern. Clinical activity of UC at diagnosis was mild (47.7%) and moderate (44.9%). After induction, 87% of patients who did not achieve clinical remission were found to have mild activity. In CD at diagnosis, mild clinical activity prevailed (77.8%). Endoscopic activity at UC diagnosis was moderate (56.4%) and severe (32.1%) and at control colonoscopy during maintenance therapy, the percentage of patients in mild/ moderate activity was 40% in both groups. In UC, prednisone (47.4%) or mesalazine (24.3%) was used for induction and for maintenance, azathioprine + mesalazine or sulfasalazine (35.9% and 25.6%), respectively. In CD, prednisone (88.9%) was used for induction and for maintenance, aminosalicylates (77.8%) and aminosalicylates + azathioprine (22.2). In UC, 70.5% presented clinical remission and 29.5% endoscopic remission. In CD, 88.9% showed clinical remission and 33.3% endoscopic remission.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".