Histologic Remission Is Associated With Lower Risk of Treatment Failure in Patients With Crohn Disease in Endoscopic Remission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although achieving histologic remission in ulcerative colitis is established, the incremental benefit of achieving histologic remission in patients with Crohn disease (CD) treated to a target of endoscopic remission is unclear. We evaluated the risk of treatment failure in patients with CD in clinical and endoscopic remission by histologic activity status. METHODS: In a single-center retrospective cohort study, we identified adults with active CD who achieved clinical and endoscopic remission through treatment optimization. We evaluated the risk of treatment failure (composite of clinical flare requiring treatment modification, hospitalization, and/or surgery) in patients who achieved histologic remission vs persistent histologic activity through Cox proportional hazard analysis. RESULTS: Of 470 patients with active CD, 260 (55%) achieved clinical and endoscopic remission with treatment optimization; 215 patients with histology were included (median age, 33 years; 46% males). Overall, 132 patients (61%) achieved histologic remission. No baseline demographic, disease, or treatment factor was associated with achieving histologic remission. Over a 2-year follow-up, patients with CD in clinical and endoscopic remission who achieved histologic remission experienced a 43% lower risk of treatment failure (1-year cumulative risk: 12.9% vs 18.2%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.94]) as compared with persistent histologic activity. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 61% of patients with active CD who achieved clinical and endoscopic remission with treatment optimization simultaneously achieved histologic remission, which was associated with a lower risk of treatment failure. Whether histologic remission should be a treatment target in CD requires evaluation in randomized trials.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".