A Systematic Review of Measurement of Endoscopic Disease Activity and Mucosal Healing in Crohnʼs Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic idiopathic inflammatory disorder of the gastrointestinal tract. Recently, mucosal healing has been proposed as a goal of therapy because clinical symptoms are subjective. Evaluative indices that measure endoscopic disease activity are required to define mucosal healing for clinical trials. The primary objective of this systematic review was to assess the existing evaluative indices that measure disease activity in CD and evaluate their role as outcome measures in clinical trials. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed using MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PubMed, the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), and DDW abstracts to identify randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials that used a relevant evaluative index from inception to February 2013. The data obtained from these trials were reviewed and summarized. RESULTS: The initial literature searches identified 2300 citations. After duplicates were removed, 1454 studies remained. After application of the apriori inclusion and exclusion criteria, 109 articles were included and 3 were identified with handsearches. In total, 9 evaluative indices for CD were identified and reviewed. The Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity (CDEIS) and the Simple Endoscopic Score in Crohn's Disease (SES-CD) are indices with the most extensively described operating properties. CONCLUSIONS: Both the endoscopic evaluative instrument selected and the definition chosen for mucosal healing affect the validity of assessing endoscopic disease activity during a clinical trial for CD. Currently, the CDEIS and SES-CD have the most data regarding operating properties; however, further validation is required.
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 | 0.016 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".