Which PCDAI Version Best Reflects Intestinal Inflammation in Pediatric Crohn Disease?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is increasing interest in measuring mucosal inflammation in Crohn disease (CD), but there are minimal data correlating the Pediatric Crohn's Disease Activity Index (PCDAI) versions (PCDAI, weighted Pediatric Crohn's Disease Activity Index [wPCDAI], abbreviated Pediatric Crohn's Disease Activity Index [abbrPCDAI], and the short Pediatric Crohn's Disease Activity Index [shPCDAI]) with mucosal inflammation. METHODS: We aimed to compare the 4 PCDAI versions head to head with endoscopic degree of inflammation as measured by the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD), fecal calprotectin, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and C-reactive protein (CRP) and to explore cut-off values that are associated with mucosal healing. We used the prospectively collected data from the ImageKids study on 100 children with CD undergoing colonoscopy and from the Growth Relapse and Outcomes with Therapy study (n = 222), in which 145 children had calprotectin data at week 12 after diagnosis. RESULTS: All 4 PCDAI versions had fair correlation with the SES-CD (r = 0.42-0.45, all P < 0.001) and CRP (r = 0.32-0.45, all P < 0.01); the wPCDAI and PCDAI were superior to the shorter versions when comparing the blood tests. All versions had poor correlation with calprotectin, and only the wPCDAI reached significance (r = 0.26, P = 0.002 vs r = 0.15, P = 0.07 for PCDAI; r = 0.08, P = 0.37 for shPCDAI; r = 0.06, P = 0.5 for abbrPCDAI). The best cut-off to identify endoscopic mucosal healing was <12.5 points for the wPCDAI (sensitivity 58% and specificity 84%) and <10 for PCDAI (sensitivity 63% and specificity 77%). CONCLUSIONS: The more feasible wPCDAI and the PCDAI had comparable correlation with measures of endoscopic inflammation. These were slightly superior to the other 2 shorter versions, but still none of the PCDAI versions can give a valid assessment of mucosal healing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".