P189 Role of digestive wall’s ultrasound in the evaluation of post-surgical recurrence in Crohn's disease: correlation with endoscopic findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endoscopy remains the examination of choice in the evaluation of activity in Crohn's Disease (CD) after surgery (ADC-AS). However, digestive wall’s ultrasound (US-DW) may represent a non-invasive alternative. The objective of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy and concordance of this modality comparatively to endoscopy. Cross-sectional study, comprising a period of 14 months, carried out in patients with established CD and ileocaecal resection due to the disease. Performed US-DW (HI-VISION avius®, Tokyo, Japan) with linear probe B-mode/Doppler prior to ileocolonoscopy. US-DW and colonoscopy were performed on the same day by 2 specialists in gastroenterology dedicated to ultrasound and inflammatory bowel disease, in a double-blind mode. Collected demographic and clinical data [Harvey–Bradshaw index (HBI, remission: ≤4)], serological/faecal inflammatory parameters [leucocytes (4 < N <10 × 109 cells/l), C-reactive protein (≤0.5 mg/dl) faecal calprotectin (N <50 mg/kg), endoscopic (score Rutgeerts: remission < i2) and ultrasound [intestinal wall thickening (N ≤ 3 mm) and digestive wall’s vascularisation using the semi-quantitative score of Limberg (absent = 0, sparse = 1; moderate = 2; marked = 3)]. Included 39 patients (female: 64.1%, mean age: 43.5 ± 15.3 years). Surgery performed, on average, 5.3 ± 5.3 years after diagnosis. Mean post-surgery follow-up: 9.9 ± 6.9 years. Montreal classification: L1 61.5% (n = 24), L3 38.5% (n = 15), B1 and B2 28.2% (n = 11) and B3 43.6% (n = 17). Most of patients were in clinical remission (87.2%; n = 34) with mean HBI 2.1 ± 2.2. Twenty-two patients (56.4%) have normal inflammatory markers. US-DW (intestinal wall thickening> 3 mm and/or Limberg> 1) was abnormal in 61.5% (n = 24). Endoscopic remission (Rutgeerts
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".