Indeterminate colitis: A review of the concept — Whatʼs in a name?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The precise diagnosis of colitis cannot always be established with the available diagnostic tools. The subgroup of patients with an uncertain diagnosis has been classified as "indeterminate colitis" (IC). The definition of "indeterminate," however, has changed over the years. Originally, IC was proposed by pathologists for colectomy specimens, usually from patients operated on for severe colitis, showing overlapping features of ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). Later, the same terminology was used for patients showing no clear clinical, endoscopic, histologic, and other features allowing a diagnosis of either UC or CD. Therefore, it is difficult to compare different studies. An International Organization of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IOIBD) working party confirmed 1) the ambiguous nature of the term, and 2) proposes an updated classification for the category of patients with an unclear diagnosis. According to this, the term IBD unclassified (IBDU) is confirmed, as suggested by the Montreal Working Party 2005 for patients with clinically chronic colitis, that clearly have IBD but when definitive features of CD or UC are absent. In resected specimens the term "colitis of uncertain type or etiology" (CUTE) is preferred. It is accepted that most of the time this may have a prefix, such as severe, chronic. The classification of IBD varies when based only on biopsies rather than on a colectomy specimen. The vast majority of these have severe colitis. For those that cannot bear to abandon the highly ambiguous term IC, if it is used at all, this is where it can be used parenthetically.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".