P364 Patient reported outcomes, partial MAYO score and SCCAI are equally accurate in predicting mucosal healing in UC: final results form a prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Optimal management of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) requires the accurate assessment of disease activity. Endoscopic evaluation is considered the gold standard approach, but it is invasive. We aimed to determine how strong patient reported outcomes, clinical scores and symptoms correlate with endoscopy for assessment of disease activity in UC patients. Methods 171 patients were included prospectively and consecutively (age: 49 (IQR: 38-61) years, duration 12 (4-19)years, 79 females (46.2%), 57.3% extensive disease, 42.7% on biologicals) at the time of the colonoscopy. The 2 item patient reported outcome (PRO), partial MAYO, Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (SCCAI), Mayo endoscopic subscore (MES), Baron and Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) scores were calculated. C reactive Protein (CRP) and fecal calprotectin (FCAL) was available in 83 and 45.6% of patients. 17.0% had clinical flare, treatment was escalated in 14.6% of patients. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV values were calculated, ROC analysis and K-statistics were performed. Results Rectal bleeding (RBS), stool frequency (SF) subscore of 0, or total PRO2 remission (RBS 0 and SF ≤1), partial MAYO (≤2) and SCCAI (≤2.5) remission were similarly associated to mucosal healing defined by MES (0 or ≤1) or Baron (0 or ≤1) scores (Table 1). PRO2 (AUCMES0/Baron0: 0.770/0.740, AUCMES0-1/Baron0-1: 0.868/0.858), SF (AUCMES0/Baron0:0.751/0.724, AUCMES0-1/Baron0-1:0842/0.820), RBS (AUCMES0/Baron0: 0.718/0.698, AUCMES0-1/Baron0-1: 0.814/0.845) partial Mayo (AUCMES0/Baron0: 0.823/0.788, AUCMES0-1/Baron0-1: 0.927/0.902) and SCCAI (AUCMES0/Baron0: 0.767/0.752, AUCMES0-1/Baron0-1:0.888/0.867) were similarly associated with mucosal healing in a ROC analysis. There was a strict association between MES 0 and Baron 0 (k=0.917) and UCEIS <4 and MES 0-1 (k=0.813), while moderate to fair agreement between UCEIS <4 and MES 0 (K=0.471) or Baron 0 (K=0.414)/Baron 0-1 (K=0.353), and between MES 0-1 and Baron 0-1 (K= 0.350) scores. Agreement between CRP and clinical remission or endoscopic healing (MES/Baron) was poor (K~0.2), while agreement between FCAL (>100 or >250) and RBS-PRO2 remission (K>100 or >250: 0.44-0.60) or pMAYO (K>100 or >250: 0.41-0.59) or MES/Baron 0 was moderate to good (K>100:0.53-0.52 and K>250:0.57-0.53). Conclusion We found no difference across accuracy of RBS, SF, PRO2, partial Mayo and SCCAI in predicting endoscopic healing. A strong association was found with high PPV for MES/Baron ≤1 and high NPV for MES/Baron 0. FCAL, but not CRP was associated to clinical and endoscopic remission.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".