C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) or both? A systematic evaluation in pediatric ulcerative colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has not been an extensive comparison of CRP and ESR in ulcerative colitis (UC), and thus, we aimed to explore their utility in UC. METHODS: Four previously enrolled cohorts of 451 children with UC were utilized, all including laboratory, clinical and endoscopic data. A longitudinal analysis was performed on prospectively collected data of 75 children. Disease activity was captured by both global assessment and pediatric UC activity index (PUCAI). RESULTS: The best thresholds to differentiate quiescent, mild, moderate and severe disease activity, were <23, 23-29, 30-37, >37 mm/h for ESR, and <2.5, 2.5-5, 5.01-9, >9 mg/L for CRP (area under the ROC curves 0.70-0.81). Correlation of endoscopic appearance with CRP and ESR were 0.55 and 0.41, respectively (P<0.001). Both CRP and ESR may be completely normal in 34% and 5-10% of those with mild and moderate-severe disease activity, respectively. Elevated CRP in the presence of normal ESR or vice versa was noted in 32%, 38%, 30% and 17% of those with quiescent, mild, moderate and severe disease activity. Over time, the utility of CRP and ESR in reflecting disease activity remained stable in 70-80% of cases. CONCLUSION: In ~2/3 of children, both CRP and ESR values reflect disease activity to a similar degree and in the remaining, either CRP or ESR may be sufficient, with slight superiority of CRP. CRP is more closely correlated with endoscopic appearance. When either CRP or ESR performs well for a given patient, this is likely to remain so over time. Therefore, it may not be justified to routinely test both ESR and CRP in monitoring disease activity.
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 | 0.001 | 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".