Positionspapier zur Befunderstellung endoskopischer Untersuchungen bei Patienten mit chronisch-entzündlichen Darmerkrankungen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The complete and reliable documentation of endoscopic findings make up the crucial foundation for the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel diseases such as Crohn´s disease and ulcerative colitis. These findings are, on the one hand, a prerequisite for therapeutic decisions and, on the other hand, important as a tool for assessing the response to ongoing treatments. Endoscopic reports should, therefore, be recorded according to standardized criteria to ensure that the findings of different endoscopists can be adequately compared and that changes in the course of the disease can be traced back. In consideration of these necessities, fifteen members of the Imaging Working Group of the German Kompetenznetz Darmerkrankungen have created a position paper proposing a structure and specifications for the documentation of endoscopic exams. In addition to the formal report structure, the recommendations address a large number of attributes of acute and chronic inflammatory alterations as well as endoscopically detectable complications, which are explained in detail and illustrated using exemplary images. In addition, more frequently used endoscopic activity indices are presented and their use in everyday clinical practice is discussed.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.034 |
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".