Baseline Histological Findings Do Not Predict the Risk of Subsequent Extension in Patients with Limited Ulcerative Colitis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Among patients with limited ulcerative colitis (UC), 30% ultimately extend to pancolitis and are at increased risk of adverse clinical outcomes. Risk of endoscopic extension has been found to correlate with clinical features such as early age of onset. AIMS: We sought to determine whether histologic features correlate with disease extension. METHODS: The study population consisted of 40 patients with UC from two large academic centers diagnosed between 2006 and 2017. Eligible cases had a diagnosis of endoscopically limited UC (Montreal E1 or E2) at baseline and ≥ 2 subsequent endoscopic examinations with biopsies. Severity of inflammation was scored using both the Mount Sinai Activity Index and Nancy Histological Index. RESULTS: Patients were divided into two cohorts: those who progressed to pancolitis (Montreal E3) were defined as "Extenders" (n = 21), whereas "Non-extenders" (n = 19) were cases without progression in the follow-up period. The median follow-up time was 58.4 months. The histologic scores in the endoscopically involved mucosa of the index biopsies were not associated with subsequent extension of disease, overall. However, among extender cohort, the index histology scores correlated with biopsy scores at extension (r = 0.455, P = 0.044) and index severity was associated with a shorter time to extension (r = - 0.611, P = 0.003). Furthermore, female patients had a shorter time to extension (P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Histological severity of limited UC is not an independent predictor of extension in UC. However, among patients who subsequently extend, severe inflammation at baseline correlates with shorter progression time and severe inflammation when extension occurs. Patients with limited UC but severe histologic inflammation may warrant more frequent endoscopic surveillance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".