Efficacy and safety of intravenous induction and subcutaneous maintenance therapy with guselkumab for patients with Crohn's disease (GALAXI-2 and GALAXI-3): 48-week results from two phase 3, randomised, placebo and active comparator-controlled, double-blind, triple-dummy trials.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Efficacy and safety of intravenous induction and subcutaneous maintenance therapy with guselkumab for patients with Crohn's disease (GALAXI-2 and GALAXI-3): 48-week results from two phase 3, randomised, placebo and active comparator-controlled, double-blind, triple-dummy trials.
Item: Efficacy and safety of intravenous induction and subcutaneous maintenance therapy with guselkumab for patients with Crohn's disease (GALAXI-2 and GALAXI-3): 48-week results from two phase 3, randomised, placebo and active comparator-controlled, double-blind, triple-dummy trials.
Rating: 100
Author: Αlpha¹

Panaccione R, Feagan BG, Afzali A, Rubin DT, Reinisch W, Panés J, Danese S, Hisamatsu T, Terry NA, Salese L, Van Rampelbergh R, Sahoo A, Vetter ML, Yee J, Han C, Frustaci ME, Wan KYY, Yang Z, Johanns J, Andrews JM, D'Haens GR, Sands BE, GALAXI 2 & 3 Study Group

Paper source

Read full text

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 3.25★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 3 high issues for “Efficacy and safety of intravenous induction and subcutaneous maintenance therapy with guselkumab for patients with Crohn's disease (GALAXI-2 and GALAXI-3): 48-week results from two phase 3, randomised, placebo and active comparator-controlled, double-blind, triple-dummy trials.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 15, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

3.25 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

CitationsUnresolved reference ×3−0.75★
ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
ClaimsTreatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful−0.5★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

No data or code availability links were detected to verify.

Problems surfaced3 types

Overstated conclusions2

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpointAssessed
Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningfulAssessed

Broken references and links1

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

References not resolvable to a published paperRecomputed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a rigorously designed and transparently reported pair of phase 3 randomized controlled trials. The methods are comprehensive, ethics and data availability are well documented, and the statistical reporting is appropriate. Minor reporting gaps (explicit CONSORT statement, copyedit typos) and three references not found in registries are the only concerns.

Both reviewers agreed on study type (interventional) and on all dimension statuses. The only divergence was on the reporting guideline sub-criterion (reported but inadequate vs not reported), which does not affect the overall pass. The statistics verification covered only 2 tests; many p-values are threshold-only and not machine-verifiable. The citation check flagged 3 references not found in registries, which are integrity concerns but do not affect dimension statuses.

4 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Premise concern: surrogate not validated for clinical benefit; effect size not shown to be clinically meaningful.

Recomputed 2 tests: 2 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 2 via agent-written checks.

Reporting

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction and 'Research in context' section cite prior trials and identify gaps (e.g., lack of head-to-head comparisons, randomized withdrawal designs). The rationale for guselkumab and the study objectives follow logically. Limitations of prior research are explicitly discussed, such as the difficulty applying randomized withdrawal results to practice.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise with prior work cited, a logical rationale, and addresses limitations of prior research.

Evidence

direct quote[Research in context, Evidence before this study]

“To date, most trials assessing the efficacy of maintenance therapy with biological agents in patients with Crohn’s disease did not include statistically robust, head-to-head comparisons with established therapies.”