Appraisal of the pediatric ulcerative colitis activity index (PUCAI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the psychometric performance of the Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis Activity Index (PUCAI) in a real-life cohort from the Pediatric IBD Collaborative Research Group. METHODS: Two consecutive visits of 215 children with ulcerative colitis (UC) were included (mean age 11.2 +/- 3.6 years; 112 (52%) males; 63 (29%) newly diagnosed and the others after disease duration of 24 +/- 15.6 months). Validity was assessed using several constructs of disease activity. Distributional and anchor-based strategies were used to assess the responsiveness of the PUCAI to change over time following treatment. RESULTS: Reflecting feasibility, 97.6% of 770 eligible registry visits had a completed PUCAI score versus only 47.6% for a contemporaneously collected Pediatric Crohn's Disease Activity Index (odds ratio = 45.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 28.6-73.5) obtained for children with Crohn's disease accessioned into the same database. The PUCAI score was significantly higher in patients requiring escalation of medical therapy (45 points [interquartile range, IQR, 30-60]) versus those who did not, (0 points [IQR 0-10]; P < 0.001), and was highly correlated with physician's global assessment of disease activity (r = 0.9, P < 0.001). The best cutoff to differentiate remission from active disease was 10 points (area under receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] 0.94; 95% CI 0.90-0.97). Test-retest reliability was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.89; 95% CI 0.84-0.92, P < 0.001) as well as responsiveness to change (AUC 0.96 [0.92-0.99]; standardized response mean 2.66). CONCLUSION: This study on real-life, prospectively obtained data confirms that the PUCAI is highly feasible by virtue of the noninvasiveness, valid, and responsive index. The PUCAI can be used as a primary outcome measure to reflect disease activity in pediatric UC.
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 | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".