Agreement of site and central readings of ileocolonoscopic scores in Crohn's disease: comparison using data from the EXTEND trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background and AimsCentralized endoscopic scoring may reduce variability, but evidence is lacking in patients with Crohn’s disease. We assessed the agreement of endoscopic scorings between site endoscopists and one central reader by using data from the adalimumab Crohn’s disease clinical trial EXTEND.MethodsAgreement between readers for Crohn’s Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity (CDEIS)–scored endoscopies from 6 sites and Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease (SES-CD)–scored endoscopies from 19 sites in EXTEND was evaluated at baseline and weeks 12 and 52. Agreement on total scores was calculated by using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Kappa statistic or Spearman correlation coefficient measured the agreement between readers for each ileocolonic segment on CDEIS variables including deep ulceration, surface involved, and ulcerated surface and SES-CD variables including ulcerated surface, size of ulcers, and affected surface.ResultsICCs on mean scores at baseline and weeks 12 and 52 were 0.78, 0.92, and 0.86 (CDEIS), and 0.77, 0.86, and 0.82 (SES-CD), respectively. Site endoscopists consistently reported higher scores. High agreement was observed for most segments and all time points for CDEIS variables and SES-CD large ulcers. Weak agreement occurred for the right side of the colon at all time points for CDEIS deep ulceration and SES-CD large ulcers and at baseline and week 12 for CDEIS ulcerated surface. Fair/moderate agreement occurred for SES-CD ulcerated surface and moderate/high agreement for affected surface for all segments and time points.ConclusionsSite and central readers showed high agreement on total CDEIS and SES-CD scores overall, whereas variability for individual segments was observed. Weakest agreement occurred at baseline, with a greater difference for SES-CD than for CDEIS score. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT00348283.) Centralized endoscopic scoring may reduce variability, but evidence is lacking in patients with Crohn’s disease. We assessed the agreement of endoscopic scorings between site endoscopists and one central reader by using data from the adalimumab Crohn’s disease clinical trial EXTEND. Agreement between readers for Crohn’s Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity (CDEIS)–scored endoscopies from 6 sites and Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease (SES-CD)–scored endoscopies from 19 sites in EXTEND was evaluated at baseline and weeks 12 and 52. Agreement on total scores was calculated by using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Kappa statistic or Spearman correlation coefficient measured the agreement between readers for each ileocolonic segment on CDEIS variables including deep ulceration, surface involved, and ulcerated surface and SES-CD variables including ulcerated surface, size of ulcers, and affected surface. ICCs on mean scores at baseline and weeks 12 and 52 were 0.78, 0.92, and 0.86 (CDEIS), and 0.77, 0.86, and 0.82 (SES-CD), respectively. Site endoscopists consistently reported higher scores. High agreement was observed for most segments and all time points for CDEIS variables and SES-CD large ulcers. Weak agreement occurred for the right side of the colon at all time points for CDEIS deep ulceration and SES-CD large ulcers and at baseline and week 12 for CDEIS ulcerated surface. Fair/moderate agreement occurred for SES-CD ulcerated surface and moderate/high agreement for affected surface for all segments and time points. Site and central readers showed high agreement on total CDEIS and SES-CD scores overall, whereas variability for individual segments was observed. Weakest agreement occurred at baseline, with a greater difference for SES-CD than for CDEIS score. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT00348283.)
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».