Randomised clinical study: discrepancies between patient‐reported outcomes and endoscopic appearance in moderate to severe ulcerative colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Associations between patient-reported outcomes and mucosal healing have not been established in ulcerative colitis (UC). AIM: To evaluate relationships of rectal bleeding and stool frequency with mucosal healing and quality of life (QoL) in patients with UC in two Phase 3 studies (ULTRA 1 and 2). METHODS: Associations of patient-reported rectal bleeding and stool frequency subscores with mucosal healing (Mayo endoscopy subscore = 0 or 0/1) and QoL [inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire (IBDQ)] were assessed in adalimumab-randomised patients (160/80 mg at Weeks 0/2 followed by 40 mg biweekly or weekly) at Weeks 8 (n = 433) and 52 (n = 299), and in patients with mucosal healing [endoscopy subscore = 0 (n = 17); 0/1 (n = 52)] at Weeks 8 and 52. RESULTS: At Week 8, the positive predictive values (PPVs) of rectal bleeding subscore = 0, stool frequency subscore = 0 or both scores = 0 for endoscopy subscore = 0/1 were 69%, 84% and 90% respectively; all proportions increased at Week 52. Equivalent PPVs for these subscores in patients with endoscopy subscore = 0 were 26%, 37% and 46% respectively. Among patients with endoscopy subscore = 0 at Week 8, 87% reported no rectal bleeding, while only 29% reported normal stool frequency; these proportions had increased to 94% and 41% respectively, at Week 52. Among patients with mucosal healing, IBDQ scores trended highest for patients with both rectal bleeding and stool frequency subscores = 0. CONCLUSIONS: Absence of rectal bleeding and normal stool frequency are often predictive of mucosal healing and QoL, but complete normalisation of stool frequency is encountered rarely in patients with mucosal healing.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".