Ultrasound vs Endoscopy, Surgery, or Pathology for the Diagnosis of Small Bowel Crohn’s Disease and its Complications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In patients with inflammatory bowel disease, we strive to achieve mucosal healing, as this has been shown to decrease the risk of disease flares, hospitalization, and surgery. For this reason, we must use objective measures of mucosal healing to inform our clinical decision-making and can no longer rely on patient symptoms alone. Assessment of small bowel Crohn's disease (SBCD) is particularly challenging given its lack of accessibility via standard endoscopic techniques. Ultrasound (US) represents a readily available, cost-effective, minimally invasive, radiation-free alternative for the assessment of small bowel disease. In this study, we performed a systematic review to determine the accuracy of ultrasound in diagnosing SBCD and its complications as compared with endoscopic visualization, surgery, and/or pathology. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. Prospective cohort studies published up to March 2017 were reviewed. References meeting all eligibility criteria were assessed at the full-text level by 2 independent reviewers. Sensitivity and specificity were collected where available. RESULTS: A total of 2817 unique references were identified. Twenty-two studies were included. All studies were at low-moderate risk of bias based on the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies criteria. Transabdominal US (TAUS) yielded moderately high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of SBCD and its postoperative recurrence. Detection was more accurate for severe postoperative recurrence. The diagnostic accuracy of US in stricture and abscess detection was high. Contrast enhancement improved the detection of abscess. Diagnostic detection of fistulas was of moderate accuracy. Entero-enteric fistulization and entero-mesenteric fistulization were most clearly identified. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound can be used to diagnose SBCD in those with known or suspected Crohn's disease. It can be used to detect postoperative recurrence and can accurately identify abscesses and fistulas, especially with the aid of contrast enhancement.
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 | 0.011 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".