Systematic Review: Disease Activity Indices in Eosinophilic Esophagitis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There is no clear consensus regarding the most appropriate measure(s) of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) disease activity. We aimed to identify all scoring indices used for the measurement of disease activity in EoE, appraise their operating properties, and discuss their value as outcome measures. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (The Cochrane library) were searched from inception to 11 May 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies that reported outcomes to measure EoE disease activity or response to treatment were eligible. Operating properties of histologic, endoscopic, and patient reported/symptomatic and health-related quality of life measures were critically appraised according to guidelines proposed by the United States Food and Drug Administration. RESULTS: Of 4,373 citations, 130 studies were eligible, of which 20 were RCTs. Although no index met all evaluative criteria, we found that: (1) the EoE histologic scoring system (EoEHSS) is the most valid histologic measure; (2) the Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS) is the most reliable and responsive endoscopy measure; and (3) the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Activity Index (EEsAI) or the Dysphagia Symptoms Questionnaire (DSQ) had superior construct validity and responsiveness in adults. The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory EoE was the most valid pediatric symptomatic measure. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence supports the use of the EoEHSS and EREFS as measures of histologic and endoscopic EoE disease activity, respectively, and the EEsAI, DSQ, or Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory EoE as measures of adult and pediatric symptoms. Additional research is needed to optimize endpoint configuration to facilitate development of new therapies.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it