Histological Inflammation in the Endoscopically Uninflamed Mucosa is Associated With Worse Outcomes in Limited Ulcerative Colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Montreal classification categorizes patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) based on their macroscopic disease extent. Independent of endoscopic extent, biopsies through all colonic segments should be retrieved during index colonoscopy. However, the prognostic value of histological inflammation at diagnosis in the inflamed and uninflamed regions of the colon has never been assessed. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study of newly diagnosed patients with treatment-naïve proctitis and left-sided UC. Biopsies from at least 2 colonic segments (endoscopically inflamed and uninflamed mucosa) were retrieved and reviewed by 2 pathologists. Histological features in the endoscopically inflamed and uninflamed mucosa were scored using the Nancy score. The primary outcomes were disease complications (proximal disease extension, need for hospitalization or colectomy) and higher therapeutic requirements (need for steroids or for therapy escalation). RESULTS: Overall, 93 treatment-naïve patients were included, with a median follow-up of 44 months (range, 2-329). The prevalence of any histological inflammation above the endoscopic margin was 71%. Proximal disease extension was more frequent in patients with histological inflammation in the endoscopically uninflamed mucosa at diagnosis (21.5% vs 3.4%, P = 0.04). Histological involvement above the endoscopic margin was the only predictor associated with an earlier need for therapy escalation (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-13.0); P = 0.04) and disease complications (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-20.9; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of histological inflammation in the endoscopically uninflamed mucosa at the time of diagnosis was associated with worse outcomes in limited UC.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".