Standardisation of intestinal ultrasound scoring in clinical trials for luminal Crohn’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intestinal ultrasound (IUS) is a valuable tool for assessment of Crohn's disease (CD). However, there is no widely accepted luminal disease activity index. AIMS: To identify appropriate IUS protocols, indices, items, and scoring methods for measurement of luminal CD activity and integration of IUS in CD clinical trials. METHODS: An expert international panel of adult and paediatric gastroenterologists (n = 15) and radiologists (n = 3) rated the appropriateness of 120 statements derived from literature review and expert opinion (scale of 1-9) using modified RAND/UCLA methodology. Median panel scores of 1 to ≤3.5, >3.5 to <6.5 and ≥6.5 to 9 were considered inappropriate, uncertain and appropriate ratings respectively. The statement list and survey results were discussed prior to voting. RESULTS: A total of 91 statements were rated appropriate with agreement after two rounds of voting. Items considered appropriate measures of disease activity were bowel wall thickness (BWT), vascularity, stratification and mesenteric inflammatory fat. There was uncertainty if any of the existing IUS disease activity indices were appropriate for use in CD clinical trials. Appropriate trial applications for IUS included patient recruitment qualification when diseased segments cannot be adequately assessed by ileocolonoscopy and screening for exclusionary complications. At outcome assessment, remission endpoints including BWT and vascularity, with or without mesenteric inflammatory fat, were considered appropriate. Components of an ideal IUS disease activity index were identified based upon panel discussions. CONCLUSIONS: The panel identified appropriate component items and applications of IUS for CD clinical trials. Empiric evidence, and development and validation of an IUS disease activity index are needed.
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 | 0.721 | 0.723 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".