Magnetic Resonance Enterography and Capsule Endoscopy in Patients Undergoing Patency Capsule for the Evaluation of Small Bowel Crohn’s Disease: A Korean Clinical Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. Studies comparing magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and capsule endoscopy (CE) for the assessment of small bowel (SB) Crohn’s disease (CD) are scarce in Korea. In addition, there is no Korean experience of patency capsule (PC) examination prior to CE. The primary aim of this study was to compare diagnostic yields of MRE and CE for the assessment of SB CD. Secondary objectives were to compare the detection rate of proximal SB lesions by each modality in the Montreal classification and evaluate the safety and feasibility of PC in Korean CD patients. Methods. MRE was performed as the first examination to assess SB CD. PC examination and CE were then performed. Diagnostic yields of active SB disease by MRE and CE were then analyzed. Results. Disintegration of the patency capsule was shown in 5 patients out of 26 patients, who did not undergo CE. These 5 patients were accounted as negative CE findings. Overall, MRE and CE detected 80.8% and 65.4% of active SB lesions of CD in 26 patients, respectively ( P=0.212 ). MRE and CE detected 0% (0/26) and 19.2% (5/26) ( P=0.051 ) of jejunal lesions, 30.8% (8/26) and 42.3% (11/26) ( P=0.388 ) of proximal ileal lesions, and 80.8% (21/26) and 53.8% (14/26) ( P=0.039 ) of terminal ileal lesions, respectively. According to the Montreal classification, MRE and CE independently detected proximal disease (L4) in 30.8% (8/26) and 53.8% (14/26) ( P=0.092 ), respectively. Conclusions. The diagnostic yields of MRE and CE for the assessment of SB CD including proximal SB lesions were similar. MRE is a more objective tool for detecting clinically relevant stricture than PC although PC examination could be performed safely before CE to prove the patency of SB. This trial is registered with KCT0004305.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".