A retrospective analysis: the development of patient reported outcome measures for the assessment of Crohn's disease activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) is a measure of disease activity based on symptoms, signs and a laboratory test. The US Food and Drug Administration has indicated that patient reported outcomes (PROs) should be the primary outcome in randomised controlled trials for Crohn's disease (CD). AIM: As no validated PRO exists for CD, to investigate whether CDAI diary card items could be modified for this purpose. METHODS: Data from a trial of rifaximin-extended intestinal release were used to identify cut-points for stool frequency, pain and general well-being using receiver operating characteristic curves with CDAI <150 as criterion. The operating properties of 2- and 3-item PRO were evaluated using data from a trial of methotrexate in CD. Regression analysis determined PRO2 and PRO3 scores that correspond to CDAI-defined thresholds of 150, 220 and 450 and changes of 50, 70 and 100 points. RESULTS: Optimum cut-points for CDAI remission were mean daily stool frequency ≤1.5, abdominal pain ≤1, and general well-being score of ≤1 (areas under the ROC curve 0.79, 0.91 and 0.89, respectively). The effect estimates were similar using 2- and 3-item PROs or CDAI. PRO2 and PRO3 values corresponding to CDAI scores of 150, 220 and 450 points were 8, 14, 34 and 13, 22, 53. The corresponding values for CDAI changes of 50, 70 and 100, were 2, 5, 8 and 5, 9, 14. Responsiveness to change was similar for both PROs. CONCLUSION: Patient reported outcomes derived from CDAI diary items may be appropriate for use in clinical trials for CD.
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 | 0.025 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".