P146 The Toronto IBD global endoscopic reporting (TIGER) score demonstrates significant correlation with fecal calprotectin, CRP and IBD Disk in Crohn’s disease patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Commonly used endoscopic indices in IBD lack ability to provide overall disease burden and severity, generate low inter-observer agreement, and demonstrate incomplete validation of some scores. We developed an endoscopic reporting tool, the Toronto IBD Global Endoscopic Reporting (TIGER) score for Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) patients. The aim of our study was to compare the usability and validity of the TIGER score against fecal calprotectin (FC), C-reactive protein (CRP) and IBD DISK score in CD patients. Methods A cohort of 60 CD patients participated in the study. Blinded IBD experts reviewed and graded ileocolonoscopy videos. In the validation phase, the TIGER score was compared to: (1) the Simple endoscopic Score for Crohn’s disease (SES-CD) as a reference standard and: (2) inflammatory biomarkers FC and CRP and (3) IBD Disk score. Results Inter-observer reliability per segment between reviewers was excellent: Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC)=0.94; [95%CI: 0.92–0.96]. For categorized TIGER score, lowest overall agreement was 96.6% [95%CI: 93.5–98.6] and lowest kappa 0.91 [95%CI: 0.84–0.98], reflecting excellent agreement. Overall agreement per segment between SES-CD and TIGER was 91% [95%CI: 84–95] with kappa coefficient 0.77 [95%CI: 0.63–0.91]. Per subject analysis for CD yielded overall agreement of 80% [95%CI: 64–91] and kappa coefficient 0.44 [95%CI: 0.14–0.75]. There was a significant correlation between TIGER and CRP (r s = .689, p < .0083), and TIGER and FC (r s = .687, p < .0001). In addition, there was significant correlation between TIGER and IBD Disk (r s = .613, p < .0001). Conclusion The TIGER score demonstrates significant correlation with FC, CRP and IBD disk score in Crohn’s disease patients and thus can be used as a reliable and simple endoscopic score for CD patients to capture overall endoscopic disease burden.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".