MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2306466871 · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310393

Development and validation of a histological index for UC

2015· article· en· W2306466871 on OpenAlexaff
Mahmoud Mosli, Brian G. Feagan, Guangyong Zou, William J. Sandborn, Geert D’Haens, Reena Khanna, Lisa M. Shackelton, Christopher W. Walker, Sigrid Nelson, Margaret K. Vandervoort, Valerie Frisbie, Mark Samaan, Vipul Jairath, David K. Driman, Karel Geboes, Mark A. Valasek, Rish K. Pai, Gregory Y. Lauwers, Robert H. Riddell, Larry Stitt, Barrett G. Levesque

Bibliographic record

VenueGut · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai HospitalWestern UniversityRobarts Clinical Trials
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsIntraclass correlationMedicineInternal medicineCorrelationGastroenterologyRating scaleNuclear medicinePsychometricsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Although the Geboes score (GS) and modified Riley score (MRS) are commonly used to evaluate histological disease activity in UC, their operating properties are unknown. Accordingly, we developed an alternative instrument. DESIGN: Four pathologists scored 48 UC colon biopsies using the GS, MRS and a visual analogue scale global rating. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability for each index and individual index items were measured using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Items with high reliability were used to develop the Robarts histopathology index (RHI). The responsiveness/validity of the RHI and multiple histological, endoscopic and clinical outcome measures were evaluated by analyses of change scores, standardised effect size (SES) and Guyatt's responsiveness statistic (GRS) using data from a clinical trial of an effective therapy. RESULTS: Inter-rater ICCs (95% CIs) for the total GS and MRS scores were 0.79 (0.63 to 0.87) and 0.80 (0.69 to 0.87). The correlation estimates between change scores in RHI and change score in GS and MRS were 0.75 (0.67 to 0.82) and 0.84 (0.79 to 0.88), respectively. The SES and GRS estimates for GS, MRS and RHI were: 1.87 (1.54 to 2.20) and 1.23 (0.97 to 1.50), 1.29 (1.02 to 1.56) and 0.88 (0.65 to 1.12), and 1.05 (0.79 to 1.30) and 0.88 (0.64 to 1.12), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The RHI is a new histopathological index with favourable operating properties.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations349
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGutSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207