Assessment of Histologic Disease Activity in Crohnʼs Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Crohn's disease (CD) is an idiopathic, chronic, transmural inflammatory disorder of the gastrointestinal tract. Because mucosal involvement is near-universal, endoscopic healing has emerged as an important aspect in improving outcome. However, resolution of histologic disease activity has potential to convey additional benefit beyond that attained with endoscopic healing alone. Validated scoring systems of histologic disease activity are required to further assess this possibility. The aim of this study was to systematically review the existing histologic disease activity indices (HDAI) for CD and to assess their operating properties and potential use as outcome measures in clinical trials. METHODS: MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PubMed, the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), and Digestive Disease Week (DDW) abstracts were searched from 1981 to April 2013 for applicable studies to identify relevant studies for review and analysis. RESULTS: In total, 3732 citations were screened to obtain 89 articles for inclusion. Sixty-six HDAIs were characterized as either stepwise or numerical instruments. These HDAIs were used for either assessment of response to medical therapy or for comparison with biomarkers or imaging tests. None of the HDAIs identified was developed according to currently accepted methods for developing evaluative instruments, and none have been formally validated. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of histologic disease activity has potential value in CD; however, no validated measures are available. Additional research is needed to develop a methodologically rigorous instrument for use in clinical investigation and potentially for clinical practice.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".