Disease Activity Indices for Pouchitis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several indices exist to measure pouchitis disease activity; however, none are fully validated. As an initial step toward creating a validated instrument, we identified pouchitis disease activity indices, examined their operating properties, and assessed their value as outcome measures in clinical trials. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials including indices that evaluated clinical, endoscopic, or histologic pouchitis disease activity. A second search identified studies that assessed the operating properties of pouchitis indices. RESULTS: Eighteen randomized controlled trials utilizing 4 composite pouchitis disease activity indices were identified. The Pouchitis Disease Activity Index (PDAI) was most commonly used (12 of 18; 66.7%) to define both trial eligibility (8 of 12; 66.7%), and outcome measures (12 of 12; 100%). In a separate search, 21 studies evaluated the operating properties of 3 pouchitis indices; 90.5% (19 of 21) evaluated validity, of which 42.1% (8 of 19) evaluated the construct validity of the PDAI. Criterion validity (73.7%; 14 of 19) was evaluated through correlation of the PDAI with fecal calprotectin (FCP; r = 0.188 to 0.71), fecal lactoferrin (r = 0.570 to 0.582), and C-reactive protein (CRP; r = 0.584). Two studies assessed correlation of the modified PDAI (mPDAI) with FCP (r = 0.476 and r = 0.565, respectively). Fair to moderate inter-rater reliability of the PDAI (k = 0.440) and mPDAI (k = 0.389) was reported in a single study. Responsiveness of the PDAI pre-antibiotic and postantibiotic treatment was partially evaluated in a single study of 12 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Development and validation of a specific pouchitis disease activity index is needed given that existing instruments are not valid, reliable, or responsive.
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 | 0.011 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".