Development of the Harvey-Bradshaw Index-pro (HBI-PRO) Score to Assess Endoscopic Disease Activity in Crohn’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a need for better, less-invasive disease activity indices that provide a representative assessment of endoscopic disease activity. We developed a new clinical score that incorporates the Harvey-Bradshaw index [HBI] with modified patient-reported outcomes [PROp] and physician [clinician]-reported outcomes [PROc] and assessed its ability to measure endosopic disease activity in ileocolonic Crohn's disease [CD]. METHODS: A cohort of 88 CD patients undergoing colonoscopy was accrued in a prospective fashion. In total, 48 of the subjects were CD cases and 40 had already undergone a post-operative ileocolonic resection [post-op CD]. Each patient underwent multiple, endoscopist-blinded assessments including: HBI score, a PROp question asking for patient perception of disease activity status, a PROc question for clinician perception of disease activity status and C-reactive protein [CRP]. Active endoscopic disease was defined as Simple Endoscopic Score for CD [SES-CD] ≥ 3 for CD subjects and Rutgeerts score > i1 for post-op CD subjects. RESULTS: Clinical remission as defined by the HBI did not accurately reflect endoscopic remission as defined by the SES-CD (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.54). Combining the HBI with PROp and PROc scores and then further adding CRP significantly improved the correlation with SES-CD [AUC = 0.78 and AUC = 0.88, respectively, p < 0.00001]. In post-op CD, HBI-defined remission also performed poorly against endoscopic remission defined by the Rutgeerts score [AUC = 0.52]. Combining HBI with PROp and the PROc scores and then further adding CRP did not significantly improve the model [AUC = 0.65 and AUC = 0.61, respectively, p = NS]. CONCLUSION: In CD, the HBI correlates poorly with endoscopic disease activity. However, the HBI-PRO score, which incorporated PROp, PROc, CRP and HBI, significantly improved its ability to predict endoscopic activity in ileocolonic CD without prior surgery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".