P517 Activity assessment in ulcerative colitis: correlation analysis of endoscopic and histological scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assessment of endoscopic and histological activity in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) is essential in daily clinical practice, especially for therapy management. Numerous studies have correlated endoscopy and histology using different unvalidated or partially validated scores with controversial results. Recently new validated scores, as the ulcerative colitis index of severity (UCEIS) and the Nancy histological index (NHI), have been developed but their use in clinical practice is still limited. Furthermore, there is a lack of evidence about the correlation between validated endoscopic and histological indices. Aim of the study was to conduct a correlation analysis between endoscopic and histological activity using the UCEIS and NHI in a cohort of UC patients undergoing a biological treatment. A single-centre retrospective analysis was conducted. We enrolled adults patients with moderate-to-severe UC who underwent a colonoscopy with biopsies at baseline before starting a biological treatment, and after a median of 48 weeks of treatment (control time). The assessment of disease activity was evaluated for the worst affected colonic segment, by using both the Mayo endoscopic subscore (MES) and the UCEIS for endoscopy and NHI for histology. Remission was defined as MES <2, UCEIS <2 and NHI <2. Spearman correlation analysis between the indices was performed. A p-value of less than 0.001 was considered statistically significant. Sixty-one patients were included. Twenty-eight patients were treated with Infliximab (IFX), 10 with Adalimumab (ADA), 20 with Golimumab (GOL), 3 with Vedolizumab (VDZ). At control time 42.6% (26/61), 29.5% (18/61) and 26.2% (16/61) achieved endoscopic and histological remission according to the MES, UCEIS and NHI, respectively. The analysis showed a statistically significant correlation between MES and NHI (r = 0.70; p < 0.001), higher between UCEIS and NHI (r = 0.81; p < 0.001). The correlation was high both for active and inactive disease. The UCEIS correlates with NHI strongly and better than MES.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".