IOIBD technical review on endoscopic indices for Crohn's disease clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic disabling and progressive IBD. Only strategies looking beyond symptoms and based on tight monitoring of objective signs of inflammation such as mucosal lesions may have the potential for disease modification. Endoscopic evaluation is currently the gold standard to assess mucosal lesions and has become a major therapeutic endpoint in clinical trials. Several endoscopic indices have been proposed to evaluate disease activity; unvalidated and arbitrary definitions have been used in clinical trials for defining endoscopic response and endoscopic remission in CD. METHODS: In these recommendations from the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, we first reviewed all technical aspects of available endoscopic scoring systems in the literature. Second, in order to achieve consensus on endoscopic definitions of remission and response in trials, a two-round vote based on a Delphi method was performed among 14 specialists in the field of IBDs. RESULTS: At the end of the voting process, the investigators ranked first a >50% decrease in Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD) or Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity for the definition of endoscopic response, and an SES-CD 0-2 for the definition of endoscopic remission in CD. All experts agreed on a Rutgeerts' score i0-i1 for the definition of endoscopic remission after surgery.
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 | 0.065 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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".