Mathematical weighting of the pediatric Crohnʼs disease activity index (PCDAI) and comparison with its other short versions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Pediatric Crohn's Disease Activity Index (PCDAI) has become the standard outcome measure in pediatric Crohn's disease (CD) clinical research. Other versions have been proposed but without systematic evaluation. The aim was to assess validity and responsiveness of the abbreviated PCDAI (abbrPCDAI), short PCDAI (shPCDAI), and modified PCDAI (modPCDAI) as measures of disease activity and to compare these with a mathematically weighted version developed here (wPCDAI). METHODS: The raw data from four prospectively collected datasets were used, totaling 437 children with CD (including two clinical trials). Discriminant validity utilized physician global assessment of disease activity (PGA), and construct validity the correlation with PGA and laboratory results. Feasibility and face validity were ascertained by a survey of 33 experts in pediatric CD. RESULTS: The wPCDAI had better performance than the PCDAI in construct validity and responsiveness and it discriminated better between the disease activity categories (area under the receiver operator characteristic [ROC] 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-0.99). In comparison to the original PCDAI, the noninvasive versions (abbrPCDAI and shPCDAI) had lower face, construct, and discriminant validity but were judged to be significantly more feasible. The modPCDAI performed well in the construct validation but was consistently inferior in all other parameters. Cutoffs that correspond to remission, response, and gradations of disease activity were determined for each index. CONCLUSIONS: The newly weighted wPCDAI performed better than the original PCDAI and is more feasible. The noninvasive versions (shPCDAI and abbrPCDAI) are inferior to the full PCDAI, but when needed in retrospective studies either may be equally used.
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 | 0.012 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".