MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A Non-Invasive Serological Test to Assess the Efficacy of Biologic and Non-Biologic Therapies on the Mucosal Health of Patients With Crohnʼs Disease

2017· article· en· W2914927365 on OpenAlexaff
Parambir S. Dulai, Brigid S. Boland, Séverine Vermeire, Geert D’Haens, David Laharie, Waqqas Afif, Andrés Yarur, Edoardo Savarino, Jessica Ho, Kelly Hester, Venkateswarlu Kondragunta, Michael Hale, Anjali Jain, William J. Sandborn

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineSerologyInfliximabCrohn's diseaseCohortAdalimumabGastroenterologyUstekinumabLogistic regressionDiseaseImmunologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Mucosal healing (MH) is a desired treatment endpoint in Crohn's Disease (CD). A non-invasive and accurate serological test for the assessment of MH, regardless of treatment, would help to improve this target in routine practice. Recently, we developed a serological, multi-marker, algorithm-based, diagnostic test that is able to assess endoscopic appearance of MH with good accuracy. In this study, we aim to validate the test performance in a therapy agnostic cohort of CD patients treated with either biologic or non-biologic therapeutic options. Methods: This is a multi-center cross-sectional cohort study of CD patients (n=278) for the validation of a serum test that includes 13 protein biomarkers representing various biologic pathways involved in maintaining intestinal health (Ang1, Ang2, CEACAM1, CRP, EMMPRIN, IL7, mmp-1, -2, -3, -9, SAA1, TGFα, and VCAM1). Logistic regression model was used to produce a 0-100 scale termed as the mucosal healing Index (MHI). Endoscopic severity was categorized using the CDEIS, with active endoscopic disease being defined as a CDEIS ≥ 3. One way ANOVA was used to determine mean differences in MHI across endoscopic disease severity categories. p < 0.05 was considered as significant. Results: The median age of patients was 34 years (range: 18-88; males: 43.9%). Approximately 50% of the cohort consisted of patients treated with biologic therapies (adalimumab: 18.3%, infliximab: 15%, anti-integrins: 10.9%, ustekinumab: 6.5%) with the remaining on thiopurines or mesalamine. Therapy information was unavailable for 22/278 patients (8%), which were excluded from the analysis. The overall test accuracy for determining the mucosal severity in this CD patient population was 90% (Table 1). The negative predictive value (NPV) was 89% for identifying patients in remission or with mild endoscopic disease. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 90% for identifying patients with endoscopically active disease (CDEIS>3). Mean MHI values demonstrated positive correlation with increasing endoscopic disease severity (p < 0.0001; Figure 1), and there was no significant change in accuracy when looking at biologic exposed versus non-exposed individuals.Figure: Mean MHI scores and endoscopic disease severity.Table: Table. Overall Serologic Test Performance for Detecting Endoscopically Visualized Mucosal Disease Severity in CD PatientsConclusion: A novel serology test has been developed to assess the mucosal status in patients with CD. The test is able to accurately assess MH in CD patients across several different types of therapeutic classes. This test has the potential to be utilized as a non-invasive tool to monitor and help manage the care of CD patients regardless of therapy.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→