MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2911337742 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjy222.288

P164 Mucosal healing (MH) assessed with PICaSSO (Paddington International Virtual ChromoendoScopy ScOre) and probe Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy (pCLE) do not reflect histological normalisation using the ECAP (Extent Chronicity Activity Plus) score

2019· article· en· W2911337742 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marietta Iacucci, Rosanna Cannatelli, Sean X. Gui, Brendan Cord Lethebe, Alina Bazarova, Georgios V. Gkoutos, Gilaad G. Kaplan, Remo Panaccione, Ralf Kießlich, Subrata Ghosh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromoendoscopyMedicineReceiver operating characteristicEndoscopyInternal medicineEndomicroscopyGastroenterologyColonoscopyConfocalColorectal cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic disease that requires long-term therapy and the achievement of mucosal healing (MH) is the target of the treatment. The new histological score ECAP (Extent Chronicity Activity Plus) has been developed to detect minimal chronic changes. The electronic Virtual Chromoendoscopy Endoscopy (VCE) score PICaSSO (Paddington International Virtual ChromoendoScopy ScOre)1 and probe Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy (pCLE) scores reflect acute histological changes (Robarts Histological Index-[RHI]) well,2 but it is unknown whether these may reflect chronic histological changes. This is a prospective study involving 82 UC patients at the Endoscopy Unit, Foothills Medical Center, University of Calgary, Canada. For each patient, clinical data including follow-up up to 12 months, endoscopic scores (Mayo endoscopic score, PiCasso and pCLE score) and histological ECAP score were determined. The details of ECAP score has already been published.1 Receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curves were plotted to estimate the cut-offs for PICaSSO and pCLE scores best predicting the MH determined by histological ECAP score. 70 patients (85.4%) were in clinical remission. We have compared the endoscopic scores (MES, PICaSSO, and pCLE) with histological healing defined by ECAP ≤ 4. Only 14 patients (28.6%) with Mayo 0 had ECAP ≤ 4. From the ROC curves, the best cut-off for PICaSSO score was 4, with sensitivity and specificity of 88.9% (95% CI 64.3%-98.6%) and 40.6% (95% CI 28.5%-53.6%), respectively with an area under ROC curve (AUROC) of 69.9% (95% CI 57.2%-82.6%). At this value, out of 54 patients with PICaSSO ≤ 4, only 16 (29.6%) have ECAP ≤ 4. The ROC curves for pCLE showed that the best cut-off point to detect MH (ECAP ≤ 4) was 11 with sensitivity of 94.4% (95% CI 72.7–99.9%) specificity of 31.3% (95% CI 20.2%-44.1%) with AUROC of 71.4% (95% CI 57.9%-84.8%). At this value of pCLE, 17 (27.9%) patient amongst 61 had ECAP ≤ 4. ROC curve for PICaSSO in the prediction of mucosal healing (ECAP ≤ 4) During the follow-up period, 8.06% of patients had a relapse: 80% had PICaSSO score ≤ 4, 80% had pCLE ≤ 11, and only one relapse 20% had ECAP ≤ 4. According our results, the endoscopic scores (PICaSSO and pCLE) are not able to predict histological healing calculated using ECAP (both chronic and acute changes) at the value ≤ 4. An ECAP score ≤4 may however predict stable mucosal healing with few relapses over 12 months. References 1. Iacucci M, Daperno M, Lazarev M, et al. Development and reliability of the new endoscopic virtual chromoendoscopy score: the PICaSSO (Paddington International Virtual ChromoendoScopy ScOre) in ulcerative colitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;86:1118–1127.e5. 2. Buda A, Hatem G, Neumann H, et al. Confocal laser endomicroscopy for prediction of disease relapse in ulcerative colitis: a pilot study. J Crohns Colitis 2014;8:304–11.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→