Upper Versus Lower Endoscopy in the Diagnosis of Graft-Versus-Host Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: The optimal endoscopic approach to patients with suspected gut graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is uncertain. We aimed to assess the diagnostic yield of upper and lower endoscopies performed in patients post-HSCT. METHODS: We identified a cohort post-HSCT with acute and chronic GVHD who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopies for GVHD diagnosis. Hospital charts were reviewed and results were stratified according to patients' symptoms. RESULTS: From 1990 to 2013 433 HSCTs were performed. Fifty-six patients underwent 141 endoscopies, of which 117 were done to evaluate for GVHD or an alternative diagnosis. A total of 28/43 (65%) of the lower endoscopies and 41/74 (55%) of the upper endoscopies diagnosed GVHD or an alternative disease process on pathology. A total of 15/43 (35%) of lower endoscopies were flexible sigmoidoscopies, and 11/15 (73%) of these diagnosed GVHD or an alternative diagnosis. Upper endoscopy performed in patients with diarrhea as their only symptom diagnosed GVHD in 44% and an alternative diagnosis in 11%. In comparison, lower endoscopy in patients with only diarrhea diagnosed GVHD in 50%, and 18% offered an alternative diagnosis. Upper endoscopy provided a diagnosis of opportunistic viral and fungal infections of the upper gastrointestinal tract in 7 patients, while lower endoscopy diagnosed pseudomembranous colitis in 2. CONCLUSIONS: Upper and lower endoscopy had a similar diagnostic yield in patients with known or suspected GVHD involving the gut, even for patients presenting only with diarrhea. Because of its ease and safety upper endoscopy is the preferred initial endoscopic approach in patients with suspected gut GVHD, however flexible sigmoidoscopy is a reasonable other option.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".