A94 IS IBD-CONTROL QUESTIONNAIRE A RELIABLE PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME IN ADOLESCENTS WITH INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IBD-Control and IMPACT-III, two validated patient-reported outcome tools are used in the clinical and research settings in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD){Bodger & al.}{Werner& al.}. IBD-Control is a Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) consisting of 13 questions and a visual analog scale (VAS, 0–100) to assess disease control, with higher scores reflecting better control of the disease activity. As for IMPACT-III, a validated pediatric health related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaire including 35 questions; highest scores are associated with a better HRQoL. IBD-Control was developed and validated only in adults. Therefore, its reliability in adolescents and its comparability to other validated pediatric instruments are lacking. The primary aim was to evaluate the correlation between IBD-Control and IMPACT-III. The secondary aims were to assess the correlation between IBD-Control and Pediatric Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (PCDAI) or Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis Activity Index (PUCAI), two objective disease activity scores for Crohn’s disease (CD) and Ulcerative colitis (UC) respectively. Between June and October 2018, children seen at the IBD clinic who met the eligibility criteria (age ≥12 years, diagnosed with IBD) were prospectively enrolled in the study and filled out IBD-Control and IMPACT-III questionnaires during the outpatient visit. The PCDAI/PUCAI scores were calculated based on the gastroenterologist’s evaluation during the visit. The Pearson’s test was used to assess the correlation between scores. All analyses were performed with SAS statistical analyses 9.4. We included 92 patients (41 females; mean (SD) age 15.8 (1.6)) in the study. Of these, 62 (67.4%) were diagnosed with CD, 21 (22.8%) with UC and 9 (9.8 %) with IBD unclassified. IMPACT-III correlated moderately with IBD-control and the VAS with a Pearson correlation coefficient r= 0.39 (95% CI: 0.20 – 0.55, P < 0.0001) and r= 0,37 (95% CI: 0.18 – 0,54, P < 0.0002) respectively. PCDAI correlated moderately with IBD-Control’s total score (r = -0.42, 95% CI: -0,61 – -0.18, P < 0.008) and VAS (r= -0,47 95% CI: -0.65 – -0.24, P < 0.0001). However, PUCAI did not correlate with any of the components of IBD-Control: r= -0.11 (95% CI: -0.44 – 0.26, P =0.57) for the total score and r= -0.24 (95% CI: -0.54 – 0.13, P = 0.20) for the VAS. Both components of IBD-Control showed fair correlation with IMPACT-III and PCDAI, making it a useful tool for evaluating HRQoL in all pediatric IBD patients and disease activity for pediatric patients with CD, but not with UC. A likely explanation for this discrepancy could be a smaller sample size of patients with UC. CAG
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".