Agreement of site and central readings of ileocolonoscopic scores in Crohn's disease: comparison using data from the EXTEND trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.)
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".