MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2794120833 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy009.076

A76 UPPER ENDOSCOPY AND HISTOLOGY IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF PEDIATRIC INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE

2018· article· en· W2794120833 on OpenAlexaff
Bin Chen, Zachary Hamilton, Mohammed Hasosah, Ruth L. Katz, Alam Lakhani, Oana Popescu, Kevan Jacobson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGastroenterologyInflammatory bowel diseaseBiopsyEndoscopyColonoscopyUlcerative colitisInternal medicineHistologyCrohn's diseasePathologyDiseaseCancerColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Upper gastrointestinal(GI) endoscopy and biopsy has been recommended as part of the initial evaluation of children with suspected inflammatory bowel disease(IBD). It is known that upper GI tract inflammation can be found in both Crohn’s disease CD) and ulcerative colitis(UC). However, criteria and classification of IBD of the upper GI tract is lacking. To date, specific upper GI tract histologic findings associated with CD include granulomas and focally enhanced active gastritis. To perform a retrospective histologic review of biopsies collected at time of diagnosis from the upper GI tract of pediatric patients with known CD and UC to determine specific upper GI histologic features for differentiation of CD and UC. Patients between 2 and 17 years diagnosed between 1998 and 2014 with either CD or UC were eligible for inclusion. All underwent both upper endoscopy and colonoscopy at time of diagnosis. A pathologist blinded to IBD diagnosis reviewed H&E slides of esophageal, antral, gastric body and duodenal biopsies taken at the initial assessment before treatment. From each site, these histologic findings were recorded: focal, multifocal or diffuse inflammation, superficial or deep inflammation, acute or chronic inflammation, focally enhanced gastritis, multinucleated giant cells and granulomas. Results were summarized as means. The Student’s t test and χ2 test were utilized to compare difference between the two groups. p<0.05 was accepted as statistical significance. A total of 158 patients, 87 with CD and 71 with UC were included. Mean age was 11.5 years(range-2 to 17 years). CD patients were slightly older(mean age 12.2 vs. 10.8 years in UC, p=0.013). 59% of CD patients had ileocolonic disease and 79% had inflammatory disease. The majority of UC patients (69%) had pancolitis at diagnosis. Macroscopically normal upper GI endoscopy was present in 58/158(37%) patients [41(26%) UC, 17(11)% CD]. Of the CD patients with grossly normal endoscopy, granulomas were present in 5/17 patients. 30%(n=26) of CD patients had upper GI granulomas (5% esophagus, 18% body, 30% antrum and 2% duodenum). Chronic inflammation (deep, superficial and focal) of the upper GI tract was present in a significantly higher proportion of CD patients than UC patients(94% vs.78%, p=0.004, Figure 1). In the antrum, chronic deep and superficial inflammation were more common in CD than UC patients (deep-41% vs.7%, superficial-55% vs.18%, p<0.001). Focally enhanced gastritis was seen in only 3 patients (2 UC, 1 CD). In addition to the presence of granulomas, chronic superficial or deep inflammation of the upper GI tract may be a diagnostic clue in making a diagnosis of CD. However, aside from granulomas, such features may also be present in patients with UC. Focally enhanced gastritis was not a prominent feature in CD patients. Figure 1.Comparison of chronic inflammation characteristics found on upper GI biopsy in CD (n=87) and UC (n=71) patients None

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→