Ileal and Rectal Ulcer Size Affects the Ability to Achieve Endoscopic Remission: A Post hoc Analysis of the SONIC Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: It is unclear how baseline endoscopic characteristics in Crohn's disease (CD) affect the ability to achieve endoscopic remission (ER). We aimed to determine the endoscopic prognostic factors that influence achieving ER in CD. DESIGN: This post hoc analysis of SONIC (NCT00094458; YODA #2019-3980) evaluated baseline and week 26 endoscopy indices in 172 patients using the CD Endoscopic Index of Severity (CDEIS) and the Simple Endoscopic Score for CD. The impact of baseline ulcer depth and size on achieving week 26 ER was assessed using multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: The ER rate of ileal ulcers was significantly lower than ER rates throughout the colon (P < 0.0001). Ileal ulcers >2 cm were less likely to achieve ER compared with smaller ulcers {odds ratio (OR) 0.31 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.11-0.89), P = 0.03}. Similarly, rectal ulcers >2 cm were associated with reduced odds of week 26 ER (OR 0.26 [95% CI 0.08-0.80], P = 0.02). Ulcer size in other colonic segments did not affect the achievement of week 26 ER. Deep ileal and rectal ulcers >2 cm compared with smaller or superficial ulcers were even less likely to achieve week 26 ER (ileum: OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.68, P = 0.02; rectum: OR 0.12, 0.02-0.82, P = 0.03). High baseline Simple Endoscopic Score for CD (≥16) or CDEIS scores (≥12) did not affect achieving week 26 ER. DISCUSSION: Patients with larger and deep ulcers in the ileum or rectum may have difficulty achieving ER. Overall degree of endoscopic inflammation as measured numerically by endoscopic scores does not affect the likelihood of achieving week 26 ER.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".