Assessing disease activity in ulcerative colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the optimal approach to assess disease activity (i.e., biological inflammation) in ulcerative colitis (UC) by comparing patients' and physicians' rating of the disease. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter, double-cohort study. The first cohort was composed of 94 children with UC (parent proxy when required) and their physicians who provided independent clinical report and global assessment of disease, rated on a 100 mm visual analog scale. Constructs of disease activity (including mucosal inflammation, laboratory tests, Mayo score, and the Pediatric UC Activity Index), were scored by an independent blinded physician and used to compare validity of the assessment. Of the 94 children, 43 were seen at a follow-up visit and provided a global rating of change in disease activity. To ascertain whether age influences assessment accuracy, a second cohort of 86 adult UC patients were analyzed in a similar way. RESULTS: In both cohorts the physician global assessment had higher correlations with all constructs of disease activity than did the patient' global assessment (for colonoscopic score r = 0.76 vs. r = 0.29, P = 0.002). Even with abdominal pain, a subjective item, the physician's rating had higher correlation than the patient's rating. Similarly, the physician rating of change better reflected change in disease activity than that of the patient rating. CONCLUSIONS: For indirect measurement of biological activity on the basis of symptoms and signs, clinician assessments are superior to those of patients. Patient assessments, physician assessments, and direct measurement of disease activity provide complementary information in clinical research.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".