Histologic remission does not offer additional benefit for ulcerative colitis patients in endoscopic remission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Histologic remission in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients may be associated with positive outcomes. It is unclear whether UC patients in endoscopic remission obtain additional benefit from achieving histologic remission. AIM: To evaluate the relationship between time to relapse and histological activity among UC patients in endoscopic remission. METHODS: In this retrospective study using an observational database, we identified UC patients who had achieved endoscopic remission (Mayo endoscopic subscore 0). Index colonoscopy was the first colonoscopy when endoscopic remission was achieved. Histologic activity was classified as normal, inactive or active colitis. The primary outcome was time to relapse. Secondary outcomes included reasons for relapse and the association between baseline variables and risk of relapse. A Cox proportional hazards model evaluated baseline factors and the outcome of relapse. RESULTS: We included 269 patients. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve showed no significant difference between the presence or absence of histologic activity and time to relapse (log rank P = 0.85). There was no difference in time to clinical relapse of patients with histologically active colitis compared to inactive colitis (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 1.17, 95% CI 0.58-2.32, P = 0.67]). 5-aminosalicylate use (AHR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21-0.82, P = 0.011), pancolitis (AHR 0.32, 95% CI 0.13-0.75, P = 0.008), left-sided colitis (AHR 0.46; 95% CI 0.22-0.98; P = 0.044) and older age (AHR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.99, P = 0.002) were significantly associated with reduced time to clinical relapse. CONCLUSION: Histologic remission did not influence time to relapse in UC patients who had achieved 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".