Systematic review: Histological remission in inflammatory bowel disease. Is ‘complete’ remission the new treatment paradigm? An IOIBD initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Advances in the medical management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have altered treatment targets. Endoscopic mucosal healing is associated with better outcomes in IBD, though less is known about the significance of achieving histological remission. Our aim was to perform a systematic review to investigate whether histological or 'complete' remission constitutes a further therapeutic target in IBD. METHODS: A bibliographic search was performed on the 1st of October 2013 and subsequently on the 1st of March 2014 of online databases (OVID SP MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE, National Pubmed Central Medline, Cochrane Library, ISI, conference abstracts), using MeSH terms and key words: ("inflammatory bowel diseases" OR "crohn disease" OR "ulcerative colitis" OR "colitis") AND ("mucosal healing" OR "histological healing" OR "pathological healing" OR "histological scoring" OR "pathological scoring"). RESULTS: The search returned 2951 articles. 120 articles were cited in the final analysis. There is no validated definition of histological remission in IBD. There are 22 different histological scoring systems for IBD, none of which are fully validated. Microscopic inflammation persists in 16-100% of cases of endoscopically quiescent disease. There is evidence that histological remission may predict risk of complications in ulcerative colitis beyond endoscopic mucosal healing, though data are scarce in Crohn's disease. CONCLUSIONS: Histological remission in IBD represents a target distinct from endoscopic mucosal healing, not yet routinely sought in clinical trials or practice. There remains a need for a standardized and validated histological scoring system and to confirm the prognostic value of histological remission as a treatment target in IBD.
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 | 0.033 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".