A Prospective Comparison Study of MRI versus Small Bowel Follow-Through in Recurrent Crohn's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the utility of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared with small bowel follow-through (SBFT) in the assessment of known Crohn's disease. METHODS: Subjects, over age 18 yr who were to undergo SBFT investigations to assess for complications or extent of Crohn's disease were eligible. SBFT was performed by a single radiologist (IB), and within 4 wk MRI was performed by a single radiologist (HG) who was blinded to the SBFT results. For MRI, oral contrast was 2% barium sulfate (1,350 mL). After unenhanced T1 weighted images and single shot fast spin echo T2 imaging, intravenous (IV) glucagon and gadolinium were given. Fast multiplanar spoiled-gradient recalled T1 coronal sequences were obtained followed by abdominal and pelvic axial images. MRI and SBFT were compared for extent of disease, presence of complications, and for identification of extraintestinal disease. RESULTS: Paired studies were undertaken within a mean of 22 days in 30 subjects. Ten studies were normal by both modalities and 8 studies showed similar extent of Crohn's disease. SBFT revealed additional information in 4, including a stricture in 1 and ileosigmoid fistulas in 2. MRI provided enhanced information in 8, including identifying active inflammation in strictured areas based on wall enhancement patterns, vasa recta changes, and lymphadenopathy. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of cost and accessibility, SBFT may still be a first line procedure of choice in some centers without MRI, but MRI's advantages of no radiation and the potential to identify active inflammation in strictured areas, extraintestinal, and colorectal disease make it an attractive alternative.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".